Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (NO.2) BILL (By Order)

TYNE AND WEAR BILL [Lords] (By Order)

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

SOUTH YORKSHIRE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 1 May.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Has the Prime Minister noted today's further rise in the value of the pound? Does she realise that that will present further problems for our manufactured exports and greater opportunities for manufactured imports, to the great disadvantage of British industry? When will she instruct the Governor of the Bank of England to sell sterling and reduce the value of the pound?

The Prime Minister: If I were to instruct the Governor of the Bank of England to sell sterling, to go on and on selling it and to resist the market, the money supply would go through the roof and we should be laying the foundations for the next round of inflation.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Gross Domestic Product (Growth Rate)

Mr. Richard Wainwright: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the main factors on which he bases his assumption of average growth rate for the years 1981 to 1984.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Biffen): The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for his inability to be present in the House this afternoon as he is attending an International Monetary Fund interim committee meeting in Hamburg.
As explained in the medium-term financial strategy, the 1 per cent. average growth rate of GDP was simply an illustrative assumption for the years after 1980. It is similar to the average growth achieved between 1973 and 1979.

Mr. Wainwright: As to the figure stated in the financial strategy being simply an illustrative assumption, does the Chief Secretary realise that it is a crucial assumption in relation to the public sector borrowing requirement target? What will he do if that assumption is unfulfilled? The right hon. Gentleman made a comparison between 1973 and 1979. Is he aware that, taking into account his planned reductions in public services, that rate of growth will require twice the rate of business output that was achieved during those years? How will he achieve that?

Mr. Biffen: It is true that there is a real significance in the assumptive implications of this figure, in respect of both taxation and public spending. The realism is underlined by the fact that it is no more than the average rate of growth that was achieved between 1973 and 1979. As in all matters, the House and the Government should be cautioned to take these matters as they arise, year by year.

Mr. Healey: The House is well aware of the right hon. Gentleman's contempt for the medium-term financial plan. Will he answer some questions? First, the plan is revealed by the evidence given to the Select Committee by Treasury officials to be grossly over-optimistic and not overcautious as was stated earlier. The Government are expecting a continuing fall in the output of manufacturing industry and in public expenditure, so any increase can come only from private services. Which private services will increase to that level? Will they be bingo parlours and luncheon vouchers?

Mr. Biffen: I am unashamed in my agnosticism about economic forecasting, and it is an attitude that I commend to all parts of the House. There are no grounds whatsoever for the right hon. Gentleman to use the word " contempt ". It is that kind of language that devalues him and debate in the House. I do not believe that it is generally assumed that the financial plan is grossly over-optimistic. Indeed, a number of commentators have suggested that in respect to North Sea oil it is under-optimistic.

Mr. Healey: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. I shall replace the word " contempt " with " distaste and mistrust ". The right hon. Gentleman said that he had chosen the figure for the


rate of growth because that was the rate of growth in the last five years. Is it not the case that in the next four years the Government are proposing to follow a fiscal and monetary policy that is far more restrictive than that followed in the last five years? Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman has boasted of that in every debate that we have had in the last 12 months.

Mr. Biffen: I am pleased to accept an apology from the right hon. Gentleman, if only because it is such a rare occasion.
With regard to the movement of the economy in the second part of this Parliament in an assumptive fashion, there is no doubt that the conditions of world trade and a reversal of stock building can have a real impact upon these figures, and I have no doubt that those factors have been taken into account.

Mr. Forman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most important points about such assumptions is that there they are aggregate assumptions, and that within those totals, through policies which result in greater efficiency in certain sectors of the economy, one might see substantial growth offsetting other sectors, which would inevitably be in decline?

Mr. Biifen: That is right in that there is much more to economics than macro-equations. There is also the whole impact upon personal motivation by Government policy.

Interest Rates

Mr. Michael Brown: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent his policy to reduce interest rates will be affected by changes in United States prime rates of interest.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Nigel Lawson): The Government's policy remains to allow interest rates to fall, as and when this is consistent with the requirements of domestic monetary control. Since my right hon. and learned Friend's measures last November, there has been a marked slowing down in the rate of growth of sterling M3.

Mr. Brown: I congratulate my hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend on that achievement, but does my hon. Friend agree that the rate of interest

that currently prevails in Britain depends to a considerable extent on the high level of prime rates of interest in the United States? Will he therefore concede that it is vital for the Government to continue to pursue their strategy of controlling public expenditure and sterling M3 in order to achieve the reduction in the rates of interest which we all recognise is desirable?

Mr. Lawson: I agree entirely with the second part of my hon. Friend's observation.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Since the Chief Secretary, at least, is an agnostic in terms of monetary religion, and since he does not believe, and does not in fact know whether the Government's monetarist policies will lead to a reduction of inflation, what is the purpose of these monetary policies and high interest rates, which are merely destroying large sections of British industry?

Mr. Lawson: The purpose of these policies is to bring down inflation. They will bring down inflation, and my right hon. Friend, far from not believing that, was among the first right hon. and hon. Members, on either side of the House, to emphasise the importance of monetary policy on the course of inflation.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I support the courageous strategy and policies of the Government—I congratulate all my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench—but does my hon. Friend agree that high interest rates are damaging to commerce and industry, particularly to new smaller businesses? Will he consider implementing a form of differential interest rate for commerce and industry, which I understand is practised by many countries with which we trade and which are our major competitors?

Mr. Lawson: In a sophisticated financial economy such as ours, there is no practical means of insulating one sector of the economy—because there would inevitably be arbitrage—even if it were desirable to do so. We must concentrate on monetary measures which enable us to reduce interest rates generally. That is one of the main purposes behind the medium-term financial strategy. With regard to interest rates in Britain particularly, my hon. Friend knows that interest rates throughout the world have


risen by as much as they have risen in this country over the past 12 months.

Mr. Jay: The Chief Secretary has wisely and publicly repudiated the crude theory on which Government policy was previously based. What changes will be made in that policy?

Mr. Lawson: My right hon. Friend has a philosophic disposition, and his speeches reflect that, but that is no excuse for an observer as percipient as the right hon. Gentleman wilfully to misrepresent them.

Tax and Price Index

Mr. Race: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest published increase in the tax and price index.

Mr. Biffen: The tax and price index rose by 176 per cent. in the 12 months up to March 1980.

Mr. Race: Will the Minister tell the House whether he agrees with the comment by his Department, in a press release dated 18 April 1980 concerning the tax and price index, that it is accurate only once a year, namely, from Budget to Budget? If that is so, how can it possibly be used by either employers or trade unions in collective bargaining arrangements that take place throughout the pay round, which lasts from November to July? In those circumstances, is it surprising that no one makes use of this so-called tax and price index?

Mr. Biffen: I do not have before me the document to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and I hope he will excuse me from giving a specific answer on that point. With regard to his more general point on the tax and price index, I believe that this index is valuable alongside the retail price index, just as it has been valuable to have data published by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, all of which are designed to try to provide some clearer public education in the movement of prices.

Mr. Marlow: On the 1 o'clock ITV news programme, Mr. Sidney Weighell said that his members were expecting to get a 20 per cent. pay increase because they want to keep their standard of living at the same level as a year ago, and that the retail price index had gone up by 20 per cent. Will my right hon.

Friend send a telegram to Mr. Weighell and all the other people on his executive to tell them that if they need to keep their standard of living at the same level as last year they require only 17·6 per cent.?

Mr. Biffen: Perhaps a few remarks from this Bench will obviate the public expenditure necessity of sending a telegram. I think that negotiations between Mr. Weighell and British Rail are best left to the appropriate people, namely, the management of British Rail, but it is undoubtedly true that productivity must be a major factor in whatever wage settlements are concluded.

Mr. Horam: Is it not clear from what has been said today that the tax and price index has lacked credibility from the word " go "? It would have been better if the Government had concentrated on the retail price index, to which wage bargainers in industry pay attention and which would have some effect on inflation if it were kept down.

Mr. Biffen: That is a somewhat narrow reaction. The major embarrassment of the tax and price index is that it was an innovation, and because it was an innovation it was deeply repugnant to many on the Labour Benches. It is true that the retail price index, by virtue of its long existence, is much greater in the whole nature of public debate on these matters than any other index.

Black Economy (Tax Frauds)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Inland Revenue Staff Association on tax fraud relating to between £5,000 million and £11,000 million of untaxed funds from the black economy.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Peter Rees): My right hon. and learned Friend has not yet had any such discussions, but we have seen the recent statements made by the Civil Service unions on the black economy.

Mr. Dalyell: Do they accept the figures in the question?

Mr. Rees: The figures are slightly speculative, as I am sure the Civil Service unions would be the first to acknowledge. I refer the hon. Gentleman and


the House to some of the later work that has been undertaken by the Central Statistical Office, which suggests that the black economy may be running at 3½ per cent. or less of gross domestic product. Of course, we are not complacent about that figure either.

Mr. McCrindle: I accept that the real antidote to the black economy is a substantial reduction in direct taxation, but will my hon. and learned Friend nevertheless take on board the fact that this is a serious problem? At the very least, does he expect any information to be fed back by the additional social security inspectors who are to be appointed, so that action can be taken against both employers and employees?

Mr. Rees: No. We expect to have better information from the revenue departments, which are naturally alert to this problem. I am sure that we shall take positive action in the light of anything that we discover through them.

Mr. Horam: Is it not time that the Government had a better informed view of this problem, especially as indicators are now being given by people who have expertise in the matter and since the Government have made such a fuss over the question of social security fraud, which is piddling in comparison with the huge amounts involved?

Mr. Rees: I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that the first figure was given during the Administration of which he was a distinguished ornament by the then chairman of the board of Inland Revenue to the Expenditure Committee. At that time the number of staff at the Inland Revenue had reached an all-time high, so there is no precise correlation between the black economy and the number of people employed in the revenue departments.

Interest Rates

Mr. Cryer: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from small businesses regarding high interest rates.

Mr. Lawson: We continue to receive a number of representations from small business men on the current level of interest rates.

Mr. Cryer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is no apparent mechanistic link between money supply and inflation, or between the public sector borrowing requirement and inflation? Is it not the deliberate and disastrous policies of the Government, who pay lip service to small businesses, that are producing the abnormally high rates of interest that are smashing small business after small business? What are the Government going to do about it?

Mr. Lawson: As I said in answer to an earlier question, the rate of interest has risen throughout the world by roughly the same amount. The whole world is facing the same inflationary problems. It is interesting to note that when the Government first took office the rate of inflation, as measured by the six months' annualised increase in the RPI, but excluding seasonal foods—which is generally regarded as the best measurement of the underlying rate of inflation—was 12·2 per cent. It is now 16·4 per cent. That is almost exactly in line with the increase in inflation rates worldwide over the same period. Similarly, countries worldwide have sought to contain the increase in inflation rates by monetary policies that involve, for the time being, a high rate of interest. Our intention is to bring interest rates down for the sake of small businesses, and others, as soon as it is safe to do so.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: In general, are interest rates positive or negative in real terms?

Mr. Lawson: That is an interesting philosophical question. Whether interest rates are positive or negative depends upon the expectation of inflation, and expectations differ. If we measure the current short-term interest rate against the current rate of inflation, interest rates are negative at present.

Mr. John Garrett: Apart from high interest rates, it is clear that small businesses will be seriously affected by the 6 per cent. decline in manufacturing output next year, which has become apparent from the cross-examination of officials before the Treasury Select Committee. Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the massive loss of jobs from medium and large companies is to be made up by small businesses?

Mr. Lawson: I do not know what massive loss of jobs the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but he seems to have a certainty about the future which some of us lack. However, small businesses would be much more adversely affected by a resurgence of inflation, which is what would happen if the policies advocated by Labour Members were followed.

Mr. Dykes: As lower differential interest rates for business are clearly impossible, would it not be a good idea to introduce a lower domestic rate of interest as soon as possible?

Mr. Budgen: That is what we are doing.

Mr. Lawson: That is precisely the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Healey: May I direct the hon. Gentleman's attention to the figures that were published on Tuesday showing the massive loss of jobs in the past seven months since the Government have been in power? Is he aware that his officials gave the view to the Treasury Select Committee that there will be a massive increase in unemployment over the next 12 months, and that no outside forecaster believes that unemployment will fail to reach 2 million within a year from now? Why is he so complacent about the consequences of his policies?

Mr. Lawson: The real question is "Why is the right hon. Gentleman so impertinent? " Even if unemployment were to rise to 2 million, that would be a smaller increase than the increase in unemployment during his stewardship of the Exchequer.

Inflation

Mr. Winnick: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he now expects the inflation rate to fall substantially.

Mr. Biffen: The Financial Statement and Budget Report forecast published at the time of the Budget envisaged that the 12-monthly increase in the retail price index would peak at slightly over 20 per cent. in the second quarter of this year before falling to 16½ per cent. in the fourth quarter. I cannot helpfully expand on those forecasts.

Mr. Winnick: Now that the inflation rate has almost certainly exceeded 20

per cent., does not that show that the right hon. Gentleman's speech in January in which he said that Britain was in for three years of unparalleled austerity is proving only too correct? In view of his latest speech on the movements in money supply and inflation, does he agree that, although it was an honest and courageous speech, it exposed the mumbo-jumbo of the Government's economic thinking?

Mr. Biffen: If I wanted commendation for my speeches, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think me discourteous if I say that I should not look to him for it. If I had to comment on the nature of my speeches, I should say that they are trite and commonplace rather than courageous.

Mr. John Townend: Is my right hon. Friend worried at the current level of the increase in the cost of public sector pay, which, with the help of Professor Clegg—about whom I shall not say any more—is touching 25 per cent.? Will he undertake that the Government will get a grip on the problem and ensure that this disastrous situation does not repeat itself in the coming year?

Mr. Biffen: It is important to get the issue of Professor Clegg into perspective. Many of my hon. Friends were fairly happy to fight on an election manifesto that had no commitment to disavow the Clegg recommendations. The real test is the extent to which settlements for the current pay round are manageable within the current cash limits. On that analysis, I think that there is some ground for modest hope.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the Chief Secretary aware that the innovation of the Government that is repugnant to Labour Members is their abandonment of their direct responsibility for promoting sensible policies on wages and prices? Will the right hon. Gentleman, who has been the architect of that, disavow the Government's policy before it is too late?

Mr. Biffen: If one can translate that into everyday current political experience, it is an invitation for the Government to endorse a quasi-statutory control of incomes which collapsed, with all the consequences that are now being dealt with by Professor Clegg. Although we may


not learn all that much in politics, I think that we have learnt that much.

Mr. Squire: Will my right hon. Friend continue to remind the House and the country that when the Labour Party was in Government it achieved a reduction in the inflation rate only when the Labour Government were forced to introduce the so-called monetarist measures that they now criticise us for pursuing?

Mr. Biffen: I think that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was an imperfect monetarist. When I look at the Labour Party, I take sustenance from Lord Butler by accepting that he is the best monetarist that we have.

Mr. Healey: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what I think he intended to be a compliment? I remind his hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) that the rate of inflation was halved in the year before the Labour Government went to the IMF. Let him put that in his pipe and smoke it. Given the right hon. Gentleman's distaste, contempt or distrust of Treasury forecasts, why has he skulked behind the Red Book forecast for inflation at the end of the year? As an honest and imperfect monetarist, does he believe that the rate of inflation in the fourth quarter of this year will be as low as 16½ per cent.? Let him come out from behind the shelter of the Red Book and tell us what he really thinks.

Mr. Biffen: I am complimented that the right hon. Gentleman should regard my remarks as a compliment. I know that he travels in stony territory and that it is hard to get compliments these days. I quote 16½ per cent. from the Red Book because it is published with the authority of the Government and because it is intended to contribute to public discussion and understanding. The House and politicians will get themselves into trouble only when they crucify themselves on these figures.

Construction Programmes (Expenditure)

Mr. Latham: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to be able to give further details of future public expenditure on construction programmes beyond 1980–81.

Mr. Biffen: I cannot give my hon. Friend any undertaking about when I

shall be able to provide such information, because detailed decisions on the composition of expenditure programmes beyond 1980–81 have not yet been taken.

Mr. Latham: I understand that. However, with regard to table 5.2 of the public expenditure White Paper—which stops at the end of 1980–81—does my right hon. Friend accept, in principle, that medium-term targets are as important for construction planning as they are for monetary control?

Mr. Biffen: I understand that point, and I know that the industry has expressed anxiety on this matter. Those considerations will be taken into account when we contemplate the next White Paper.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Although I accept that the Minister is, not unnaturally, reluctant to publish the figures for construction, are not the housing figures available in the Estimates? Do not they show a cut of £2·5 billion a year by 1983, most of it in bricks and mortar? Is not that a suicidal policy when 235,000 building workers are unemployed?

Mr. Biffen: I readily confess that I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's specific question, but I shall ensure that an answer is sent to him. There is no point in deceiving ourselves about the construction industry. If there is to be a cut in the rate of inflation, and if an interim price is to be paid for reduced activity, the construction industry, no less than other parts of the economy, will have to pay it.

Mr. Woolmer: In view of the forecast decline in investment in the construction industry, why are the Government deliberately understating North Sea oil revenues by £3 billion or £4 billion in current prices, and probably £7 billion or £8 billion a year in foreseeable terms? Is it not more important that those revenues are used to strengthen industry and investment in this country and do not go abroad in capital outflow and destroy our industry through a high-value pound?

Mr. Biffen: Although that is a controversial question, it is none the less interesting and perceptive, I suggest that it goes a good deal wider than the public expenditure construction programme. The conclusion that I draw from the hon.


Gentleman's observation is that it is unfair to characterise the medium-term forecast as some facile piece of optimism.

Clearing Bank Profits (Taxation)

Mr. Parry: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when his consideration of the imposition of a special tax on the windfall profits of the leading clearing banks will be completed.

Mr. Flannery: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to complete his consideration of a special tax on the windfall profits of the clearing banks.

Mr. Lawson: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. and learned Friend said in his Budget Statement.

Mr. Parry: The recent massive profits announced by the four leading banks and those of British Petroleum, which exceed £3 billion, exceed the total savings from public expenditure cuts. Is this the unacceptable face of capitalism? Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer urgently consider the TUC's call for a windfall tax on such obscene and exorbitant profits?

Mr. Lawson: As a general proposition, one issue that divides the Chamber is that Conservative Members would like to see higher profits, in the interests of a healthy economy, whereas Opposition Members would like to see profits disappear down the plug hole. When such bank profits occur, partly as a side effect of Government policy, the question of special taxation measures relating to the windfall element will arise. It would be foolish to rush into hasty decisions which might have undesirable side effects.

Mr. Flannery: Does not the Financial Secretary, with his well-known capacity for witch-hunting those on social security, realise that those profits are so exorbitant and unexpected that people will want to see whether this enthusiasm for taxation applies to the big boys as well as to the tiny ones? Will he consider taxing profits of £4,000 million when ordinary people are being grossly overtaxed?

Mr. Lawson: I have already answered that question. The banks are taxed. In his Budget Statement the Chancellor made it clear that he would consider whether

it would be appropriate to introduce a windfall tax on the windfall element of the banks' profits. It is absurd to talk about witch hunts. We are trying to ensure that the economy becomes healthier and that the balance between taxation and expenditure is right. We seek to diminish the public sector borrowing requirement, and that will be one of the main uses of revenue from North Sea oil. We also wish to bring down inflation. To talk in the emotive language that the hon. Gentleman has used is to demean the Chamber.

Mr. Marlow: In view of the recent wage agreements negotiated by the clearing banks, does not my hon. Friend agree that there is a little bit of evidence to show that the clearing banks are a tiny bit monopolistic? Does he not think that it would be a good idea to look at that problem?

Mr. Lawson: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is looking at that problem. The pay increases that are being negotiated by the banks are a matter for them. However, they are fully aware of the consequences of unnecessarily high pay increases.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: What is the Treasury definition of a " windfall "?

Mr. Lawson: In this context, a " windfall " is something that accrues to one section of the business community, not as a result of its efforts but as a result of the side effects of specific Government policies. That is why we have a petroleum revenue tax.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend confirm that many of those windfall profits go back into industry and are of benefit to it? May I press my hon. Friend further about the differential rates which I earlier proposed? They may well be used by and be made available to industry. Is it not correct that many of the countries with which we compete—including some of our European colleagues—are adopting differential interest rates for the benefit of their industries?

Mr. Lawson: Although I am not an expert on the subject, I understand that some countries have two-tier interest rates, with greater and lesser amounts of success. However, to shelter one sector


of the economy at the expense of another would undermine the effectiveness of the Government's overall monetary policy. It would be subject to leakages, and it is highly unlikely that it would be effective.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Is not the Financial Secretary aware that the Government's failure to act demonstrates their fear of the City and of offending the Bank of England? Does he agree that there is no problem about taxing excess profits and that one could have an excess profits tax? If the hon. Gentleman were to introduce such a clause into the Finance Bill, we would support it.

Mr. Lawson: There are considerable practical difficulties. If the right hon. Gentleman takes a little more time to reflect on the subject, he will, with his experience, appreciate that.

Mr. Donald Stewart: How does the Financial Secretary think that the public will react—in a climate of social security cuts, £l prescription charges and so on—when they see those bank profits? Does he accept that they arose as a direct result of Government policy and were not the result of demands for increased production? Does he further accept that even the Daily Mail found them unacceptable?

Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that bank profits tend to rise when profits in the rest of the economy are not doing well and when interest rates are rising. The reverse is also true. Bank profits tend to fall when the rest of the economy is doing well. One should look at the behaviour of bank profits and other profits over the cycle as a whole.

Premium Bonds

Mr. Freud: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what circumstances would persuade him to narrow the gap between minimum lending rate and the 7 per cent. interest currently paid into the premium bonds prize fund.

Mr. Peter Rees: New, more attractive terms of the prize fund have only just been announced.

Mr. Freud: Will the Minister at least spend a comparable sum on advertising index-linked retirement certificates— which currently yield 20 per cent.—to

that which he spends on advertising premium bonds, which yield 7 per cent.?

Mr. Rees: We shall certainly take account of the hon. Gentleman's remarks and see whether we can boost the sales of other forms of saving certificates.

Money Supply

Mr. Dykes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the development of the money supply in the first quarter of 1980.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the progress of the achievement of his monetary targets.

Mr. Lawson: Recent figures suggest that the underlying rate of growth of sterling M3 is now well within the 7 to 11 per cent. target range.

Mr. Dykes: Now that these figures appear to be much more optimistic, when will they have an effect on the rate of inflation?

Mr. Lawson: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has pointed out on a number of occasions, there is a well-established link between falls in the rate of growth of the money supply and falls in the rate of inflation. That is not mechanistic. There are variable time lags, but on the whole these lags tend to be about two years.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Obviously these figures are highly encouraging. Does my hon. Friend agree that the early implications suggest that the Government's strategy has laid the foundations from which we can look forward to perhaps the most urgent requirement of industry and the most useful thing that we can do for it, namely, a gradual reduction in the cost of borrowing money?

Mr. Lawson: I entirely agree.

Mr. Healey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the Select Committee the other day that 2 per cent. must be added to the published figures of money supply to account for the distortions of the corset since the Government took office? Is he aware that in that case the Government have not met their monetary targets at


any time in the last 12 months? That being so, why should anyone take the slighest notice of the fantasies in the medium-term plan?

Mr. Lawson: As I have pointed out, there has been a sharp deceleration in the rate of growth of the money supply since my right hon. and learned Friend's measures last autumn. In the past five months, even taking into account the acceptance leak to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, the rate of growth of the money supply has been running at 9¾ per cent. a year.

Mr. Ron Brown: Is the Minister aware that the Government's economic policy will mean many more days of action among workers who must defend their living standards against Government policies?

Mr. Lawson: I can think of nothing more futile, and nothing more contrary to the interests of the working people of this country, than so-called days of action to which the hon. Member refers.

Enterprise Zones

Mr. Adley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress of discussions he has had for the creation of his proposed enterprise zones.

Mr. Riffen: My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are currently consulting the local authorities named in the Government's policy document. The Government will make a final announcement about sites in the summer.

Mr. Adley: Is it not a measure of the interest in this proposal that local authorities up and down the country are clamouring to be designated as enterprise zones? In view of the substantial and exciting opportunities that these enterprise zones offer, will my right hon. Friend ensure that as soon as the sites have been selected every means of communication to business and industry is used to bring the opportunities home to those who make investment decisions?

Mr. Biffen: The answer to both parts of my hon. Friend's question is " Yes ".

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is the Minister aware that unemployment in the Northern region is approaching 140,000 and

that, in effect, that was once the national figure? If the Tyne-Wear area succeeds in getting one of these enterprise zones, would it not be more appropriate to rename it a resuscitation zone?

Mr. Biffen: I had hoped that the hon. Member would be rather more charitable in welcoming this innovation.

Bank of England

Mr. Straw: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will meet the Governor of the Bank of England.

Mr. Lawson: My right hon. and learned Friend expects to meet the Governor shortly.

Mr. Straw: When the Chancellor meets the Governor, will he discuss with him the Bank of England's own evidence from its financial model that the public sector borrowing requirement has only a small effect on the level of interest rates? Indeed, a change of £1,500 million affects interest rates by only 0.2 per cent. What will the Chancellor say to the Governor about that evidence?

Mr. Lawson: In his evidence to the Treasury Select Committee a few days ago, the Govenor of the Bank of England stressed the importance of getting the public sector borrowing requirement down.

Retail Price Index

Mr. Marlow: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the fiscal implications of the existing make-up of the retail price index.

Mr. Peter Rees: The retail price index measures the rate of change of the prices of the goods and services that households buy; this necessarily includes price changes which are due to changes in indirect taxation.

Mr. Marlow: The retail price index is sometimes referred to as the cost-of-living index. Does it make sense that drink and cigarettes, which some people claim contribute to dying rather than living, should be included in the cost-of-living index?

Mr. Rees: The composition of the retail price index is not directly under Government control, but the point is made.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Ql. Mr. Freud: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 24 April.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and later met Mrs. Louisa Kennedy, the wife of one of the American hostages in Tehran. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with a delegation from the city of Hull.

Mr. Freud: While the Prime Minister pursues her busy schedule, will she bear in mind that an extra 5p tax on a packet of cigarettes would have enabled the Government to increase child benefit by £1 instead of 75p? Will she accept that any loss of revenue caused by a diminution in smoking would easily have been compensated for by savings in the National Health Service?

The Prime Minister: Extra indirect tax works through straight away to the retail price index. Because so many social security benefits are linked to that index, that would put up public expenditure next year by a multiplier factor. That is one of the aspects that we must take into account when deciding the balance of the Budget.

Mr Ian Lloyd: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the deplorable example of bath-plug economics, to which our attention was drawn in the press articles on the Isle of Grain power station closure yesterday and today? Can any industrial society survive a system in which 27 men can force the squandering of nearly £400 million of hard-earned public capital in this way? Does not this he at the heart of the discontent which some of us feel, in that the initiative that she is showing in this area has not been sufficiently robustly supported on the Benches next to her?

The Prime Minister: I agree that industrial relations on the Isle of Grain site for the new power station have been a disgrace, when some 27 laggers can virtually bring the whole place to a dead slow and then a stop and are being paid £4·60 bonus an hour. I agree that we need

to look into industrial relations on this site and other sites of the same kind. We must also look into the economics of the construction of future power stations which can be so delayed and overrun like this one.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Prime Minister referred to her discussions with Mrs. Kennedy, to whom we all give our sympathetic understanding. Is she aware that Mrs. Kennedy spoke on radio before she met the Prime Minister and made a statement to the effect that in no circumstances would those poor hostages support any military undertaking? In her discussions with Mrs. Kennedy, did the Prime Minister give her a similar impression, and will the right hon. Lady and her Government bear it in mind?

The Prime Minister: I saw Mrs. Kennedy this morning, and I think that she is a wonderful and remarkable person. It is clear that both she and her husband, who is being held hostage, have considerable inner resources of strength that are seeing them through. I made it clear that we are anxious to support our friends, the United States, in what we are now being asked to do—to take further political action, and later economic action. We shall continue to support them in those endeavours.

Mr. Body: If, in the course of today, my right hon. Friend considers the tactics that she will employ this weekend in Luxembourg, will she bear in mind that the essence of any genuine community must be the willingness of those who are strong and well off to help those who are less well off? Does she agree that at present we should be net beneficiaries and not net contributors? If my right hon. Friend cannot reach any such agreement, there is no Euro-fanatic in this country who will be able to persuade the British people that we belong to a genuine community.

The Prime Minister: The essence of partnership in any community is that all partners are entitled to an equitable deal. We are not getting an equitable deal at the moment. Because of that, we are requiring back large sums of the net contribution that we make. I still do not underestimate the difficulties of the task, but we must stick to our objective absolutely clearly.

Mr. James Callaghan: While we wish the Prime Minister success in her endeavours at Luxembourg to recover this large sum of money—and we have given her steady support in this matter—will she, in view of the statement by President Giscard d'Estaing yesterday that this issue could not be settled in the absence of an agreement to increase farm prices, give an assurance that the position of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be fully supported and that no increase will be conceded by the British on prices for goods and commodities in surplus?

The Prime Minister: When that statement was made by the President of France and communicated to the meeting of Agriculture Ministers, my right hon. Friend made a pretty robust response—as only he can. He said that the agriculture price agreement would be dealt with, as it always has been, on merit. I have made it abundantly clear that we are certainly prepared to look at the other matters which have to be settled within the same time scale but that each of them must, nevertheless, continue to be considered on merit, and I shall stick to that viewpoint.

Mr. Callaghan: I take it that the Prime Minister wants the House to understand that there is no question of bargaining an increase in the farm price settlement on commodities that are in surplus against the budget.

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree. We are not bartering a settlement in one sphere against settlement in another. We are prepared to look at them all—certainly agricultural prices and sheepmeat—within the same time scale. I think that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends would say that if we expect Community members to help us to sort out our problems, we must equally expect to be ready to help them to sort out theirs. That is what a community is.

Mr. Callaghan: I do not know whether the right hon. Lady was trying to obfuscate the issue, but what she said at the end was not clear. We would like a clear answer from her on this matter. Is it the case that when she goes to Luxembourg—she will, of course, be discussing all these issues separately—she does not intend to yield on what is the common

sense of the agricultural situation, namely, that commodities in surplus will not enjoy price increases this year?

Mr. William Hamilton: " Yes " or " No".

The Prime Minister: I had hoped that we were at one on this and that after my last reply we were at one. May I repeat——

Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Lady has thrown the towel in.

The Prime Minister: —that we are not going to barter prices on the agricultural settlement against the budget. The agricultural settlement will be dealt with by the Agriculture Ministers in the ordinary way.

Mr. Callaghan: With all respect to the right hon. Lady, we have not had an answer to the question. The question is a simple one. Are we intending to stand firm on our position that commodities in surplus will not enjoy a price increase during the coming year?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is asking me to achieve something that he never achieved. What I will not do is to barter prices in the Agriculture Council against the budget. With all due respect, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can ask for more than that.

Mr. Callaghan: The House and the whole country will draw their own conclusions from that attempt to wriggle. However, the right hon. Lady is wrong, because we did achieve a freeze on surplus commodities. They did not enjoy any price increase. Will the right hon. Lady please withdraw her remarks on that?

The Prime Minister: It was a freeze on surplus commodities last year, negotiated by my right hon. Friend. In almost all years—I do not say in every one—the right hon. Gentleman negotiated increases in prices above those recommended by the Commission. I think——

Mr. Michael Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Speaker: I shall take the point of order later. I know what it is.

The Prime Minister: The country will be well aware that it was the right hon.


Gentleman's Administration that left us with a net contribution of £1 billion.

Mr. Whitney: During the course of the day, will my right hon. Friend consider what additional measures her Government, or this House, might take to give British trade unionists the opportunity to have a better level of leadership, the need for which has been exemplified by the performance during recent days of a certain Mr. Mostyn Evans, who signed a national agreement with British Leyland and then advised his membership that he would support action against that agreement, only to find his recommendation rejected in turn?

The Prime Minister: Over and above what we have provided for in the Employment Bill and the new Green Paper which will be coming out, I think that we must look to the trade unions to sort out their own internal problems. What we are trying to do is to give ordinary trade union members a greater say in union matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL ARMS SALES (BRANDT COMMISSION REPORT)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding the views expressed by the Brandt Commission regarding taxation of international arms sales for the benefit of developing countries.

The Prime Minister: We are studying the detailed proposals of the Brandt Commission and will give our considered views soon.

Mr. Dalyell: On the principle of such a tax, does the Prime Minister agree or disagree with her right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and his distinguished co-signatories?

The Prime Minister: I looked at what the Brandt Commission said on this matter of a tax on armament exports and imports. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is a pretty cursory reference. It is a long way from a firm recommendation that there should be a tax on armaments. The reference is in the context of a tax on all exports and on all international trade. I could not suddenly out very much more study, and I do not come out with a decision on that with

believe that those who sat on the Brand Commission would expect it.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that what ma; appear to be a developing country in one context is, in some manufacturing contexts, highly developed and may be competing, quite unfairly, with our own producers?

The Prime Minister: I accept what my hon. Friend says. There are great differences among developing countries One of our problems is that of competing with some of the trades of the newly developed countries, such as South Korea.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Sainsbury: asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for 24 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon, Friend to the reply which I gave earlier.

Mr. Sainsbury: Will my right hon. Friend find time during the day to look at the information available on the increasing persecution in the Soviet Union of the so-called dissidents, who are, of course, people seeking to exercise fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of religion and speech and the right to emigrate? Will the Prime Minister consider how this information can best be made more widely available so that those who are considering going to the Soviet Union, for whatever reason, might be more aware of the extent of the denial of human rights there?

The Prime Minister: The latest information that I have was given during the course of a debate in this House. It was information compiled by a distinguished academic. It said that between August 1978 and March this year there were some 97 political trials in the Soviet Union, leading to over 200 severe sentences of imprisonment for political matters. As my hon. Friend knows, in addition to those matters, Sakharov has been sent to the town of Gorky, where he cannot communicate with anyone. There is widespread persecution of minority groups in the Soviet Union, and that is endemic to the system.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Michael Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With no disrespect to the Leader of the Opposition, may I put it to you that it is in the interests of Back Benchers on both sides of the House that some limit should be placed on the number of occasions on which any one of us can intervene? Today the Leader of the Opposition was called no fewer than five times. I believe that the majority of hon. Members would agree with what I have said.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Further to. that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that if the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister were to answer a simple question there would be no need for my right hon. Friend to intervene on so many occasions?

Mr. Speaker: The House knows that I have often said that I would give extra latitude to the Leader of the Opposition. It is not often that he intervenes on five occasions.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons: (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): He has.

Mr. Speaker: Well, the Leader of the House can count better than I can. How-

even, the House knows that that extra latitude is given. I know that normally the right hon. Gentleman is aware that his own hon. Friends wish to intervene.

Mr. Skinner: He kept me from speaking, but I am not complaining.

Mr. Speaker: That makes me feel at home with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Scott: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You mentioned the right hon. Gentleman's own supporters. Is not there something to be said for your taking the view that if the Leader of the Opposition rises five times in succession five Conservative Members might then be called?

Mr. Speaker: That is an interesting suggestion.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I suggest that one can avoid both those problems if, when the Leader of the Opposition is minded to repeat his question a number of times, he could intervene towards the end of Prime Minister's Question Time so that Back Benchers can get in their questions and so that he is able to receive the same answer several times?

Mr. Leighton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition had to persist in his question because the Prime Minister evaded the answer?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This will get us nowhere. It is all a matter of good sense and patience, and give and take. It is not often that the Leader of the Opposition intervenes five times, although it may have happened before.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Mr. St. John-Stevas indicated assent.

Mr. Speaker: I see that the Leader of the House has counted five.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: During business questions.

Mr. Speaker: Oh, I see. We are talking on a different level.

SAUDI ARABIA

Mr. Dalyell (by private notice): Mr. Dalyell (by private notice) asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the return of our ambassador from Saudi Arabia.

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Ian Gilmour): Our ambassador has been asked to leave by the Saudi authorities, as a direct result of the damage caused to the relationship between our two Governments by the film "Death of a Princess ", which was shown by ATV on 9 April. It might be helpful to the House for me to set out the course of events which led to the Saudi request that our ambassador should return home.
On 3 April, the Saudi Foreign Minister summoned our chargé d'affaires in Jedda to tell him of his Government's concern about the film and to warn of the very serious consequences which could ensue for our relations. In the light of this message, I recalled our ambassador, Mr. James Craig, from leave, and he returned to Saudi Arabia with messages from my right hon. and noble Friend and myself. We stressed that the British Government would regret it deeply if our close relations with the kingdom were damaged by an event for which neither Government were responsible. I should like to take this opportunity to reiterate that expression of regret.
After the film was shown, there was considerable press comment, and the Saudi embassy in London issued a statement which was highly critical of the film and ATV. There has been widespread protest from all over the Arab and Muslim world, and attention has focused on plans to show the film in other Western countries. Yesterday, the Saudi Foreign Minister told our ambassador that his Government had re-evaluated Anglo-Saudi relations and decided that it was not proper to maintain them at their present level. They would therefore not proceed with the despatch of their ambassador designate to London and they would have to ask our ambassador to leave for the time being. The Saudi authorities have also made it clear that a visit by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which had been planned for 30 April, would no longer be appropriate, and other high-level visits have been cancelled.
I should like to stress once again that the Government attach very great importance to our relations with Saudi Arabia, and we regret that they should have been damaged in this way by an incident outside our control. We have a close political and economic relationship from which we both benefit. There is a community of about 30,000 British people working in Saudi Arabia. We share a common concern that the vital Gulf area should develop in stability and peace without interference from outside Powers. In view of present external threats to the area, we should be drawing closer together, not drifting apart.
The Government hope and believe that with good will on both sides the present misunderstanding can be overcome and the normal course of relations resumed. The wide range of bilateral contacts will not be interrupted on our side and I hope that British citizens working in Saudi Arabia and British business visitors will not be deterred by these events. We wish to see the minimum disruption in our relations and a speedy return to the friendship which has characterised them in the past.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in an oil complex area such as West Lothian many of the families of the 30,000 reside? What assurances can be give to those families?

Sir I. Gilmour: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern, but we have no reason to believe that as a result of what has happened the presence of the hon. Gentleman's constituents and other British subjects is any less welcome than it was before this latest development. As he will be aware, this incident does not mean the end of diplomatic relations. We have recently increased the number of consular staff to serve the increasing expatriate community, and the departure of our ambassador will not affect the staffing of the embassy or the consular and commercial services which it has always been able to provide.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this incident would be damaging enough in its own right but that, when seen against the background of the serious situations in Iran and Afghanistan, it is a matter of the gravest importance that our relations should now be damaged with the most important of


the Arab oil States? In those circumstances, will my right hon. Friend consider whether it would be wise for him personally to seek to visit Saudi Arabia for the purpose of discussing Anglo-Saudi relations with the Government of that country? Does he further agree that one of the conditions of freedom of the press, which we all support, is that there should be responsibility of the media, too?

Sir I. Gilmour: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that this incident, which would have been regrettable at any time, is particularly regrettable in the light of events in Iran and Afghanistan. Obviously we shall do all on our side to try to make this interlude in our relations as short as possible. As at present advised, I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to go, but any other member of the Government and myself are at all times ready to do what we can to bring this disruption to an end.
I agree entirely that we have freedom of communications in this country with which the Government, like, I trust, other Governments, have been careful not to interfere. That must be balanced on the other side, I agree, by a degree of responsibility by those who make films that are shown abroad.

Mr. Shore: While endorsing the wish for continued close relations with Saudi Arabia, may I ask whether the Lord Privy Seal will take every opportunity to make plain to the Saudi Government that the press and television in this country are not subject to ministerial dictation? While we should, and do, respect the cultural traditions of their country, we expect an equal respect for our own, of which freedom of the press and opinion is a vital part.

Sir I. Gilmour: I agree with that. We have made clear to the Saudi Government from the word "go", and before the film was shown, that we do not control the media in this country and have no wish to do so.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: The knees of the right hon. Gentleman's trousers are worn out.

Sir I. Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman shows his characteristic ignorance.
We all applaud the freedom of the press, but the House will no doubt be

aware that this film is subject to considerable criticism. Those who saw it will be aware of that. Mrs. Penelope Mortimer, who cannot be accused of having prejudices reflecting those on the Government side of the House, wrote a letter to the New Statesman pointing out that the film is open to objection. The whole genre is something to which the IBA and the BBC should be giving considerable attention. The dressing up of alleged fact in fiction is not only objectionable to our foreign relations but strongly objectionable in films relating to this country.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an extension of Question Time. I shall call two more hon. Members from each side.

Mr. Walters: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this regrettable episode—it is everyone's hope that in British and Arab interests its effect will soon be overcome—will not interfere with the proposed British and European initiative in the Middle East, which will do much to reassure countries there of our interest and friendship?

Sir I. Gilmour: This will not have a general effect on our foreign policy, although it would be idle to deny, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, that a lowering of relations between us and one of the most important countries in the Middle East is a setback. We shall try to see that it lasts for as short a time as possible.

Mr. Faulds: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the irresponsibility and the self-interest of some of the bright boys of the media, both in television and in the public prints, who make political attacks under the guise of entertainment, frequently damage British interests and, indeed, Western interests?

Sir I. Gilmour: Like most hon. Members, I am not a television critic; I do not watch much of it. I did, however, make it my business to watch this film. I believe that the so-called dramatisation, or fictionalisation, of alleged fact and history is extremely dangerous and extremely misleading. It is a matter to which the broadcasting authorities must give close attention.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us on the Government Benches would wish to apologise to the Saudi Arabian Government and to the Saudi Arabian Royal Family for the insult and discourtesy shown to them in this film? Is he further aware that the producer of the film, Anthony Thomas, has a history of producing inaccurate and biased films? Will he make approaches to the Independent Broadcasting Authority to ensure that the Left wingers do not have the power to undermine the best interests of the United Kingdom?

Sir I. Gilmour: There were undoubtedly incidents in the film, as we know from Mrs. Penelope Mortimer, that had virtually no factual basis at all and were based on innuendo and rumour. They should not have been shown. On the other hand, I do not think that it is for the House to make an apology for something for which it has no responsibility. Nor do I think it right to make representations to the Independent Broadcasting Authority. I have no doubt that it will have taken note of what has happened arising from this incident.

Mr. Whitehead: Would not the Lord Privy Seal agree that most of the comment this afternoon has made a bad situation worse? Instead of indulging in the kind of character assassination heard from both sides of the House in the last few minutes, it might simply be pointed out to the Saudi authorities that legislation is going through the House at the moment that would allow an individual, including a Saudi, recourse to a tribunal of investigation if he claimed that a film had maligned him in any way.

Sir I. Gilmour: I am totally against character assassination. I think, however, that the Saudi Government at present would take limited comfort from what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that after the Business Statement, there is to be another statement, and private business begins at 7 pm. In the scheduled three-hour debate on the cost of living, which will now last less than three hours, there are four Front-Bench speakers. We need to try to make business questions as short as possible.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. James Callaghan: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): The
business for next week is as follows
MONDAY 28 APRIL AND TUESDAY 29 APRIL—Debate on the statement on the Defence Estimates 1980, Cmnd. 7826. At the end on Tuesday, motion on the Census Order.
WEDNESDAY 30 APRIL—Completion of remaining stages of the Employment Bill. Consideration of Lords amendments to the British Aerospace Bill.
THURSDAY 1 MAY—Supply [16th Alloted Day]: Debate on a motion to take note of the 1st to 6th reports from the Committee of Public Accounts in Session 1978–79 and the related Treasury minute, and of the First to Seventh and Tenth reports in this Session, and the related Treasury minutes and Northern Ireland Department memorandum.
FRIDAY 2 MAY—A debate on London, which will arise on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Callaghan: Has the Leader of the House anything to say about a debate on the Brandt report and the prospect of a public expenditure debate before we reach the Finance Bill?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: In relation to the debate on the Brandt report, as I indicated last week, we should have a debate in Government time. I have noticed the important motion on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brockle-bank-Fowler) and Members of other parties.

[That this House welcomes the publication of the report of the Independent Commission on International Development Issues, under the Chairmanship of Willy Brandt; values its assessment of the growing interdependence of industrialised and developing countries; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to make


a serious study of its recommendations and provide time for a debate on this subject at the earliest possible opportunity.]

They want a debate before the summit in June. I shall use my best endeavours to see that the request is fulfilled.

With regard to the question of a public expenditure White Paper debate, my attitude remains what it has always been. As I indicated last week on at least five occasions and a variety of levels, I wish to accommodate the right hon. Gentleman. We need also, for the convenience of the House, to have the report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee available before the debate. This is not strictly next week's business. I can, however, tell the right hon. Gentleman that I have approached my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), who has indicated that the report will be available in time for a debate, probably in the week after next. I should like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his help. I hope that this will satisfy everyone in the House for a short time.

Mr. Callaghan: I hope that I shall not have to get up five times again.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: We should be thankful for large mercies.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend answer the very simple question: why are we not to debate civil defence at the same time as we debate the defence White Paper? It seems a great mistake that we should not have the promised White Paper on civil defence so that it can be debated conjointly with the documents on defence. The defence of this country has to be a seamless robe. To discuss overseas defence without discussion of civil defence seems a mistake. Can we do anything to remedy this situation?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is customary for the Defence Estimates to be taken in this way. I concede that civil defence is relevant to these debates. Subject to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, perhaps it will be possible for reference to be made to the issues to which my right hon. Friend naturally attaches importance.

Miss Richardson: Is the Leader of the House aware of the considerable anger of Opposition Members on Standing Committee B, which is dealing with the Social Security (No. 2) Bill, at the attitude of the

Secretary of State for Social Services in introducing a Draconian sittings motion? Will he give time for a debate in the House on the constitutional point of having two Bills with interlocking provisions going through both Houses at the same time?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I understand the feelings that are aroused by the Social Security (No. 2) Bill, but I believe that it is in the interests of the members of the Committee to have as many occasions as possible to debate that important Bill. We must remember that it is necessary—for the upratings in child benefit, for example—that it should reach the statute book at the earliest possible opportunity. I cannot promise an early debate on the other point raised by the hon. Lady.

Mr. Philip Holland: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to give serious consideraton to the two related early-day motions 568 and 569, supported by myself and 70 of my right hon. and hon. Friends? When will the House have an opportunity to reach a decision on these two motions?

[That (1) A Select Committee be appointed, to be called the Select Committee on Non-departmental Public Bodies, to examine the membership, operation, financing of, and appointments to, non-departmental public bodies appointed out of funds by Ministers of the Crown, and related matters; and the Committee shall consist of a maximum of 13 Members, of which the quorum shall be five;

(2) The Committee shall have power—

(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from time to time;
(b) to appoint persons with technical knowledge either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference:
(c) to appoint two sub-committees:
(d) to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before subcommittees; and the sub-committees appointed under this Order shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to adjourn


from place to place and shall have a quorum of three;

(3) Unless the House otherwise orders, all Members nominated to the Committee
appointed under this Order shall continue to be members of the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament.]

[That no Motion shall be made for the nomination of Members to serve on the Select Committee on Non-departmental Public Bodies, or for their discharge, unless:

(a) notice of the Motion has been given at least two sitting days previously, and
(b) the Motion is made on behalf of the Committee of Selection by the Chairman or by another member of that Committee]

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Clearly the subject is important, but the view that I have consistently taken on the issue of further Committees and Sub-Committees is that we must have an opportunity to digest the extremely important changes which have been made with 12 departmentally related Committees and Sub-Committees. When those have settled down, then would be the time to look at the question again.

Mr. Stoddart: Bearing in mind the worsening world situation and reports that are today coming out of America that the Administration are worried about a slide towards war, would it not be as well to have a very early debate on our attitude so that hon. Members can put their points of view?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is certainly true. I should have liked to have an early debate on foreign affairs if there were not so many other competing subjects. If, in this very grave situation, there should be a need for the House to be informed of developments, my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal will be freely available to make statements from the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that the evidence submitted to the Select Committee on defence by the Secretary of State for Defence and other representatives of the MoD will be available, albeit in draft form, prior to the defence debate on Monday and Tuesday?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly look into that matter to see whether it is possible to make it available.

Mr. Stephen Ross: First, I call for an early debate on world affairs. Secondly, if we are not to get a decision or any recommendations from the Home Secretary on the May report on the conditions in our prisons, which are in a crisis situation, with nearly 45,000 people incarcerated in them, may we at least debate the situation, as it is soon likely to boil over?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I think that I have already answered the foreign affairs point raised by the hon. Gentleman.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be making a statement next week on his conclusions on the May report.

Mr. Conlan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Select Committee on defence has produced a report, which will be published tomorrow, on the defence White Paper, which will be debated on Monday and Tuesday? Will he ensure that the report of the Select Committee, which was produced after intensive effort, is drawn to the attention of the House by a tag on the Order Paper on both days?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I was aware that the report was due to be published. On the public expenditure White Paper debate, I took the view that we should first have the report of the relevant Committees. Therefore, I have delayed this debate so that the report should be available. The previous question related to evidence, as I understood it. As we are having some trouble in the printing world, I did not want to give an undertaking that that evidence would be published.
The suggestion of a tag is reasonable in view of the increased importance of these Committees. I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion and write to him.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. In the interests of the House, I shall call four hon. Members from either side. I hope that they will be brief, because the Supply day debate will be brief.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Bearing in mind the17 May deadline for European Community and, therefore, British sanctions against Iran, will my right hon. Friend say what plans the Govenment have for


bringing legislation before the House? It is no use going to 17 May and then saying that we have to start legislation. When is the House to see it?
My right hon. Friend may feel that he answered the question about a foreign affairs debate, but, if he did, he did not do it very well. It is essential that there be a debate on this serious matter before the 17 May deadline.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: With regard to the point about legislation, if we will the end we must will the means. The Government have committed themselves to the declaration of a joint policy that legislation will be available, if necessary. We are looking into that matter at this moment. Of course, it would greatly facilitate matters if any legislation could be jointly agreed. No doubt conversations will be taking place through the usual channels. I was greatly encouraged to hear the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), in his usual statesmanlike and responsible way—that may be the kiss of death, but I cannot help it—laying down the Opposition's policy on this matter and lending their general support to a policy that is designed to avoid military action.

Mr. Jay: As many EEC legislative proposals recommended by the Scrutiny Committee for debate are not being debated, are the Government honouring their undertaking that these documents will be debated before decisions are reached in Brussels?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have just seen the report, published today, of the Scrutiny Committee. I am looking into the important matters that have been raised. The vast majority of documents are debated, but the Committee instances a number of documents. I am looking into the question.

Mr. Kilfedder: As there is widespread and conflicting speculation about the Government's intentions for the future of Northern Ireland, a situation of drift that acts as an impetus to the Provisional IRA in its campaign of terror, will the Government provide time to debate Northern Ireland, so that they can outline their proposals for the Province and a devolved Parliament or Assembly?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am afraid that I do not have time for an early debate,

but I hardly think it is necessary on the ground put forward by the hon. Gentleman, because it is absolutely clear that the Government's policy is that there will be no change made in the status of Northern Ireland and its link with the United Kingdom unless it is at the freely expressed wish of the majority of the population of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note that the Secretary of State for Defence has before him a report from the steering committee on the future of the Royal naval dockyards, and that many hon. Members who have dockyards in their constituency will be inhibited if the report is not available for the defence debate on Monday and Tuesday?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I will certainly take up the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to see whether something can be done on an interim basis to assist the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members in a similar position.

Mr. Lang: Will my right hon. Friend find time at an early date to make a statement on the matter of Sub-Committees for certain Select Committees of the House? In particular, is he aware that the Select Committee on Scottish affairs, with 13 members, has to cover five Departments and numerous agencies, and is finding its work impeded?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Yes, I am aware that there are certain problems arising from the Select Committees——

Mr. Skinner: Get rid of them.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly not get rid of them. It is the wish of the House that they should exist. I can tell the hon. Gentleman—who, incidentally, I welcome back—that the problems of the Select Committees are the problems of success. It is because they have so much work to do and are so effective and so many hon. Members wish to serve on them that there is a demand for further Sub-Committees, but I do not think that we can go further at the moment.

Mr. Stallard: May I return to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) about the serious situation that prevails in Standing Committee B? I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider his


decision and to find time for an immediate debate. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has so arranged matters that the Official Report of the previous sitting and necessary regulations will not be made available to Opposition Members? Does he not consider this to be a disgraceful state of affairs in an important Committee whose deliberations affect millions of people?
May we have an early debate?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I would consider it a serious matter if reports were not available. We are having printing difficulties. Late last night I was in touch with the Stationery Office, the printers, to ensure that, although printed copies of the reports might not be available, reproduced copies would be available, and those copies were produced for the Committee today. We are doing our best.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend use his considerable charm and influence to secure an early debate on the possible British or European initiative to solve the Palestinian problem in the Middle East, the effects on that initiative of the showing of "Death of a Princess", and the question whether there is any possible Zionist connection between the two events?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am appreciative of my hon. Friend's gracious remarks. I cannot, I am afraid, respond sufficiently because I simply do not have time for an early debate. I will draw the remarks of my hon. Friend to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal.

Mrs. Renée Short: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that some weeks ago he promised the House that he would give an opportunity to discuss the Finniston report? As he has not included that debate in next week's business, when will the report be debated?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: As the hon. Lady knows, the Finniston report raises a number of complicated issues on the future of the engineering industry, and the discussions are still going on. As soon as I am in a position to do so, I will make an opportunity for a debate. Meanwhile, I shall keep the hon. Lady apprised of developments.

Mr. Orme: May I return to the issue of the Social Security (No. 2) Bill? Is the Leader of the House aware that he

has a duty to protect and represent all hon. Members on both sides of the House, and that the motion that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services forced through the Committee this morning means that the Committee will sit on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday afternoons every week? It will therefore be impossible for Committee members to see the Official Report of the previous day's proceedings, and the drafting of amendments will be affected. There is no need for this haste.
Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend to ensure that the sittings motion protects the Opposition in their deliberations on an extremely controversial Bill? The right hon. Gentleman has a duty to see that we have fair representation and the necessary documentation, and I ask him to secure the withdrawal of this Draconian motion.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I accept the definition of my role which the right hon. Gentleman has given. I am in close touch with developments in the Committee. I have already said that I shall look into the question of printing. We will do all we can to see that the documents are available. I appreciate the intensity of feeling of the right hon. Gentleman, but it is important for various reasons that the Bill should get on to the statute book as soon as possible so that benefits can be paid.

Mr. Skinner: What benefits?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Meanwhile, it is important that there should be the fullest possible discussion.

SOCIAL SECURITY (No. 2) BILL

Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is your responsibility to protect the interests of minority groups in the House. The matter that has been raised very much affects the interests of the minority.
The Social Security (No. 2) Bill is the first Bill for 50 years that provides for reductions in social insurance benefits. Yet, at the first sitting of the Committee, the Minister proposed a sittings motion which provided for open-ended sittings on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday afternoons. Even if there were no printing difficulties, it would be physically impossible for the members of the Committee each day to have the report of


proceedings of the previous sitting before them. This will render unintelligible the further proceedings of the Committee.
Will you, Mr. Speaker, give an undertaking to inquire into this position in which Members are deprived of their right to documentation on successive days? If the Minister uses draconian measures in this way, we have a right to ask you for protection from this process.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and the House are aware that there is no appeal to me from what happens in Standing Committee That is a matter for the Standing Committee and the Chairman of that Committee. The House has laid down those rules. I am bound by them and so are other hon. Members.

LOCAL ELECTIONS (GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS)

Mr. Marks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, relating to the question of Government announcements to the House and the general public affecting particular local authorities during the period of the local elections. I had understood that in the Department of the Environment it was the custom on planning applications and appeals and on education matters and social service matters that decisions were not announced until after polling day. I had assumed that this was the reason for the long delay in the decision on the Tameside secondary reorganisation. The Secretary of State for Education and Science has announced the decision of the Birmingham education authority, which has a Conservative majority of one. Will you rule on the matter of the statements made by the Government in this period?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have no authority over the timing of statements by Ministers.

STANDING COMMITTEES

Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Referring back to your ruling on the Standing Committee——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must make clear to the House that I cannot enter into discussions about what happens in a Standing

Committee. The newest of hon. Members must know by now that that is very much a part of our rules. I cannot be tempted along those lines.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Yes, but that is——

Mr. Speaker: Order. With every respect to the hon. Gentleman, I hope that he is not seeking to pursue the matter of the Standing Committee.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am.

Mr. Speaker: In that case, I am afraid that I cannot listen to the hon. Gentleman. I am not prepared to take any further points of order on that.

Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman said " On a point of order ". What I have said is that I shall not enter into a debate or discussion with anyone about what happened in the Standing Committee. It is not within my field of responsibility. It is the sole responsibility of the Standing Committee Chairman.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Mr. Wellbelovedrose——

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman has a point of order about anything else, of course, I shall listen to him.

Mr. Wellbeloved: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. The office of Chairman of any Standing Committee carries very heavy responsibilities for the hon. Member who is appointed to that position. If it is the judgment of the Chair and the House that the Chairman of a Standing Committee—whether it be dealing with the protection of animals or any other subject—is the sole custodian of what should and should not take place in that Standing Committee, may we take it that were such a Chairman, in his judgment to believe that hon. Members were being denied the opportunity properly to pursue their public duty, and were to suspend that Standing Committee in order that documents might be made available, he would receive not only your assistance and protection, but, I hope, the protection of the House?

Mr. Speaker: If the Chairman of a Standing Committee dealing with the protection of animals or with any other subject takes action in that Committee, it is his responsibility. It is not mine.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: In order to protect the further business, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I have taken note of the point that has been made? I shall look into it, as a matter of urgency, to see whether any special arrangements can be made.

Mr. James Callaghan: Will the Leader of the House add to that that he will make a statement on Monday about his conclusions?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall look into it to see whether special arrangements can be made. I cannot go further than that.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (AGRICULTURE MINISTERS' MEETING)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the meeting of the Council of Ministers in Brussels on 21–24 April, at which I represented the United Kingdom and was accompanied by my hon. Friend the Minister of State.
After two days of inconclusive discussion of the milk surplus, the Council spent its final sessions in agreeing a report for the European Council on the principles which should underlie this year's prices settlement. This statement contains no commitment as to price levels, though it records that a large majority of member States is in favour of larger increases than have been proposed by the Commission. I repeated the view of Her Majesty's Government that there should be no price increases on those items in surplus and that price increases elsewhere should be within the limits proposed by the Commission.
On co-responsibility levies for milk, there was a consensus that the cost of disposing of future additional production should be borne by producers themselves, by means of a flat-rate levy of not less than the 1·5 per cent. level agreed last year, and a further levy designed to put additional pressure upon further increases in milk production. There is, however, no agreement as to the form of this further levy. Some member States make their acceptance of the principle conditional on its being implemented by means of a levy on products going into intervention, and others on its incorporating an element of discrimination whereby the rate of levy would be lower for certain classes of producers. We were supported by other delegations in our view that there should be no discrimination. Finally, the report refers to the decision of the Economic and Finance Council that substantial savings must be made in agricultural expenditure.
There was virtually no discussion of sheepmeat, but the French Minister and I each circulated a statement of our respective positions, and these will be further considered by the appropriate institutions.
The marketing years for commodities due to end next week were extended to the end of May. Finally, the Council adopted a proposal by the Commission on the treatment of variable positive monetary compensatory amounts. Under this arrangement, during the two months for which this proposal operates, Britain will be on the same basis as the other members of the Community with regard to both positive and negative monetary compensatory amounts. I made it clear that I accepted this only subject to thorough consideration of the whole issue on a Community basis during the coming weeks.

Mr. Mason: I am sure that the House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that statement, because it would appear that he has stood by his pledge to the House that he would not agree to any increase in prices for products in structural surplus, or agree to a sheep-meat scheme which benefits the French at the expense of the Community budget. But is he aware that he has now effectively passed the buck to the Prime Minister and the summit meeting? Although he has stood by his pledges to the House, does he think that the Prime Minister will do the same? I warn him that we fear a sell-out at the summit.
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that this is not the best way to develop a sensible and rational agriculture policy, when it is to be subject to trade-offs between Prime Ministers? I hope, therefore, that he will assure us, as Minister of Agriculture, that he will not allow the Prime Minister to trade off our common fishery policy objectives or weaken on a price freeze on surplus products.
There was no mention of sugar in the statement. May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman is still committed to a reduction in quotas? May we take it that the beef premium and the full butter subsidies will also continue?

Mr. Walker: Having listened earlier to the Leader of the Opposition, and having just listened to the Opposition spokesman on agriculture, I admire the cheek of the Opposition, because no Government gave away more on prices for goods in surplus than the previous Labour Government. The former Prime Minister, in 1977–78, not only agreed to increase

prices of milk, sugar and wine, all in surplus, but actually agreed to increases in prices beyond what the Commission was proposing. For that ex-Prime Minister to lecture the present Prime Minister on giving way on prices is a classic example of the practitioner of the past—I hope—confessing his sins. [Interruption.] The reason for my having a weak case is that under the previous Labour Government the cost of the CAP went up from £1,600 million to £7,000 million as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's rather reckless policies towards it. The view of the Government on prices has been made perfectly clear and it remains the position of Her Majesty's Government.
No discussion took place about sugar but the Commission implied that it would be introducing measures to increase the levy on the B quota this year. It is likely that last year's quotas will continue in existence for another year.
With regard to the beef premium, we have made clear our position that we would do away with the scheme only if there were other appropriate schemes that were better for our producers.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the Minister aware of the growing problems in agriculture concerning profitability generally? He did not deal in his statement with the horticulture subsidy which Germany has now introduced—a scheme involving £1·;·5 million to subsidise its glasshouse growers with energy costs because they have been suffering from dumping from Holland. It is rumoured that the French will do the same. What will our Government do to protect our own producers?

Mr. Walker: At the previous Council meeting it was agreed by a number of members of the Council, including ourselves, that there was a need for the Community to have a common approach to the problem, and the Commission promised to produce a paper on that. I spoke to the Commissioner on the topic at the last meeting. He informed me that the paper has now been prepared, and promised to bring it forward—I hope at the next Council meeting. The only way to tackle the problem is to have a common standard for the Community as a whole.

Mr. Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the dispute with the French over sheepmeat has been allowed to drag


on for far too long, to the detriment of United Kingdom sheep producers? Will he therefore explain what further action he can take, other than referring the matter to the respective committees and institutions, that will resolve the problem in the way that we all hope?

Mr. Walker: On the sheepmeat regime, when we reached that item on the agenda at 3 o'clock this morning, the French Minister announced that he was in total disagreement with all the proposals that had been put forward and, as the Council of Ministers had not agreed on any of the many proposals that he was making for price increases elsewhere, he could not go on discussing the sheepmeat regime.
The Presidency and others reacted by saying that it was a matter which had to be cleared up in the near future. The paper tabled by the British Government, which does not include intervention and would benefit our sheep producers, as the biggest in Europe, will be discussed at a working committee prior to the next Council meeting. I hope that we shall be able to make progress.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to continue to accept the imposition of a levy on increased production of milk in the United Kingdom, even though we are massive net importers of milk and dairy products? Does he not think that the British farming industry faces enough difficulties, with interest rates and so on, without facing that sort of discrimination as well?

Mr. Walker: I made clear in my statement that I will not accept a levy that discriminates against the United Kingdom producer. I want a system that operates on the basis that those who produce the surpluses in Europe meet the cost of disposing of them. I should favour any move towards that principle.

Mr. Body: In order that we may all be quite clear about it, will my right hon. Friend reaffirm the promise that he gave me in the House just before Easter that there will be a veto on any increases in farm prices for items that are in structural surplus?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. The position is that at this Council meeting, as at others, the British Government made clear that they are not in favour of any price in-creases

creases that will continue the increases in the surpluses. Late last night there was an attempt by the French Government to obtain an increase of 5 per cent. overall. Obviously, we made our position clear on that, and I am glad to say that the majority of member States were unwilling to accept a price increase of that order.

Dr. David Clark: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable feeling in the North-East of England that in the Community discussions on fishing and the special dispensation for " North Britain ", that refers only to Scotland? Will he assure the House that he will ensure that " North Britain " includes the North-East of England? I make that point seriously in view of yesterday's unemployment figures, which show that one man in five in my constituency is without a job.

Mr. Walker: I am discussing an Agriculture Council meeting and not a Fisheries Council meeting. The hon. Gentleman has raised a topic which I shall discuss at the Fisheries Council.

Mr. Dykes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Opposition spokesman on agriculture still does not understand the CAP, the Government's policies or what his own Government did when in office? Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the House on defending the British position robustly and successfully so far? Is not the great message of hope that afer the summit meeting all the other member States realise increasingly strongly that the CAP must be fundamentally recast and reconstructed in the next two years, and that this could be the beginning of a new era if the French would co-operate?

Mr. Walker: Perhaps the most significant factor in this year's price review is that for the first time the Commission has put forward a proposal for the cost of additional surpluses to be borne by the member States producing them. I shall hope to persuade the Council, over a period, that the same principle should apply to existing surpluses.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to stop questions at 4.30 pm, even if hon. Members are still trying to catch my eye. I hope that questions will be brief.

Mr. Spearing: On the question of the so-called co-responsibility levy on milk, will the Minister confirm that it is in fact a milk tax and that even if farm prices remain the same, prices to the consumer may well go up? Will he confirm that in his experience, when he has to reach decisions on the same time scale, he cannot avoid linking the issues that have to be decided by a given time?

Mr. Walker: I presume that all the increases above the Commission's proposals that took place during the lifetime of the previous Government were due to those sort of linkages and negotiated positions. Perhaps that could be explained by the previous Minister of Agriculture. On the co-responsibility levy, I should prefer a system in which the exercise of restraint was on the price and not on the levy. The levy system has been in operation for some time and at the previous meeting of the Council it was agreed that if milk surpluses continued to rise the levy would also rise. That is the current position.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As the hon. Member for a constituency with an important agricultural content, may I assure my right hon. Friend that he certainly has the confidence of farmers, who believe that he will ensure that the best interests of British agriculture prevail in Europe. Will he give a categorical assurance to the House, so that it is on record for ever, that he will not consider any form of discriminatory co-responsibility levy on milk which will be damaging to the British dairy industry?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Cryer: I was not sure whether, when the right hon. Gentleman said earlier " Yes, Sir " to one of his hon. Friends, he really meant that he would use the veto to prevent any products in surplus from having their prices increased and that he would use the veto to maintain a price freeze.

Mr. Walker: Obviously there is a relationship between levies, prices and other topics. I have stated categorically that I am against giving increases in incomes to those who are currently producing surpluses. That is a sensible view, to which we will adhere.

Mr. Marlow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although we on the Conservative

Benches have every faith in him and we are confident that our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be able to achieve this weekend far more than anyone else in this country could possibly achieve, there is always the possibility that a few bone-headed Frenchmen will prevent an adequate settlement being reached? As a prudent and effective Minister, no doubt my right hon. Friend has some contingency plans. As the housewives of this country are fed up to the back teeth with the common agricultural policy and paying £35 a year for each member of their families above what they would otherwise have to pay, will my right hon. Friend confirm that included in his contingency plans is the possibility of buying food on the world markets at world prices?

Mr. Walker: Having had the wisdom of my advice for the past three days and nights, I am sure that the view of the French will change.

Mr. Maclennan: In view of the appalling budgetary consequences that would flow from any decision that did not reflect the priorities of the Government, and in view of past experiences of Councils of Agriculture Ministers exceeding the Commission's recommended price levels, does the right hon. Gentleman think that there would be some advantage in the final decision on price levels and price fixing for agriculture being taken by the Council of Finance Ministers rather than by the Council of Agriculture Ministers?

Mr. Walker: I should be happy for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to attend all these meetings on my behalf. It is a myth that Agriculture Ministers decide matters in the interest of agriculture communities against the wishes of their Finance Ministers and Prime Ministers. My judgment on the CAP is that the increases that have taken place have had the full approval of the Governments concerned. When it is suggested in Germany that the German Agriculture Minister does not have the support of his Government for all the increases that he has obtained, it must be remembered that he has remained the German Minister of Agriculture for 11 years.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Following on from my right hon. Friend's reply, he will be


aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said this afternoon that farm prices were to be settled within the Council of Agriculture Ministers. Will he therefore confirm, finally and conclusively, that he will continue to oppose any increase in the prices of commodities that are in structural surplus?

Mr. Walker: That is the position not of myself, but of the Government. I assure my hon. Friend that at every Council meeting that I attend the negotiating position that I take is agreed by the Government as a whole. I am sure that the same was true of my predecessor. My negotiating position is agreed by the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister and all the members of the Government.

Mr. Ioan Evans: As the Prime Minister came back from Dublin saying that she would not accept half a loaf, and as she will now be negotiating at the summit conference for the elimination of the £1,300 million, may we have a categorical assurance that the farm price review will not be a part of the package to reduce that £1,300 million, in view of the fact that inflation in Britain is running at 20 per cent., which is a much higher rate than that of the rest of Europe?

Mr. Walker: All that I can say is that our record so far on this matter is very much better than that of our predecessors. If we got half a loaf, it would be much better than the previous Government achieved. They never got a crust.

Mr. Leighton: Will the Minister accept my congratulations on the fact that he has so far resisted any increase in prices of products in surplus? However, in view of the evasive answers given by the Prime Minister earlier today, will he give a categoric assurance that in the package deal that she negotiates there will be no possibility of these prices being increased, and that he will veto any price increases for products in structural surplus?

Mr. Walker: I am sorry, but I really believe that this attempt by Opposition Members to create an atmosphere and situation in which there is no possible

negotiating position is absurd. All that I can say is that Her Majesty's Government's record on CAP prices is so much superior to that of our predecessors that people can have much more confidence now than ever before.

Mr. Strang: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall, however, that only on 20 March his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave the Leader of the Opposition the assurance that the Government would stick to a price freeze on products which are at present in surplus and that later that afternoon the Minister himself accepted an Opposition amendment committing the Government to a price freeze on milk and sugar? In view of his right hon. Friend's prevaricating replies this afternoon, will he give a straight " Yes " or " No " answer to this question: are the Government committed to a price freeze on milk and sugar?

Mr. Walker: I repeat that the Government's policy is a prices freeze on milk and sugar. That has always been the position and, unlike the previous Government, we have stuck to it.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 12 MAY

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. John Cartwright.

Mr. David Trippier.

Dr. David Clark.

BILL PRESENTED

SEA FISH INDUSTRY

Mr. Peter Walker, supported by Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Secretary Atkins, Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith and Mr. Jerry Wiggin, presented a Bill to enable the White Fish Authority to impose a levy in respect of white fish and white fish products trans-shipped within British fishery limits: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 197].

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[15TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

Orders of the Day — COST OF LIVING

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House once again that this debate will continue until 7 o'clock. There are four Front Bench speakers. In the interest of their colleagues, I hope that hon. Members will bear that fact in mind.

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the soaring cost of living which is a direct result of the economic and financial policies of Her Majesty's Government.
It is now admitted by the Government that the year-on-year rate of increase in inflation is over 20 per cent. Indeed, it is admitted by the Government that it is likely to rise even further in the next few months. So, within one year of taking office, the Government, who inherited a rate of inflation of 10 per cent., have doubled the rate.
Our case in this debate is this. First, we have a soaring cost of living. That cannot be denied. It is self-evident. Secondly, this excessive and dangerous level of inflation has been caused largely by deliberate Government policies. Third, at the last election the Conservative Party deceived the electorate into thinking that price increases would be reduced under a Conservative Government.
I remind the House, briefly, of the activities of the Conservative Party during the last election campaign. First, the Conservatives' prices spokesman, the right hon. Member for Gloucester Mrs. Oppenheim)—on the Government Front Bench today as the Minister for Consumer Affairs—was referred to in an article in The Daily Telegraph of 25 April 1979. A correspondent caught very acutely the flavour of the Tory election campaign as developed by the right hon. Lady, who went electioneering in Ealing, North. The correspondent in The Daily Telegraph described how the right hon. Lady attempted to make an impact on what he

called " skilled working class wife-type " voters.
He wrote that the right hon. Lady
 would come... smiling her celebrity smile and breaking into her patter.
Different people reacted in different ways. Some were clearly preoccupied in trying to guess who she was. Was she in ' Crossroads '? or a hostess on ' The Golden Shot '? Or perhaps a new series of ' Candid Camera ' was being filmed? 
I wish that it had been. The report continued:
 In such cases a dialogue would ensue rather like that between a ventriloquist and a nervous doll.
' I expect you're finding prices rising all the time,' the Star would say encouragingly.
' Er, yeah,' the consumer would reply.
' I imagine that this means there are lots of things you find it difficult to afford these days.'
' Er, yeah.'
' What for instance? '
' Er, er, er, er...'
' Kitchen towels perhaps? '
' That's right, kitchen towels. '
And as the afternoon progressed, your reporter began to fear that there must be a fairly severe recession in the kitchen towels business—not to mention the clothing, washing-up liquid and tooth-powder industries.
For whenever she mentioned a product, sure enough, the shopper in question couldn't afford it these days. It scarcely seemed worthwhile going down to the shops.
To make her point more dramatically "—and this will reawaken memories among my hon. Friends—
 Mrs. Oppenheim was carrying two baskets of unequal size. One, overflowing with loaves, fish fingers, tinned fruit and the Big Economy Packet of breakfast cereal, represented what a Tory 1974 pound would buy.
The other, which contained a few odds and ends and the tiny Economy Size of breakfast cereal, showed what the Socialist pound of today was reduced to.
But this caused an unexpected diversion. A local Tory baker rushed in wanting to substitute his own crusty loaf for the mass-produced, sliced product in the specimen baskets.
' But I have to use this standard controlled loaf,' explained Mrs. Oppenheim diplomatically. 'It has to be a fair comparison to show that you can't get value for money under Labour.'
' You can in my shop," replied the baker
indignantly.'
Those of us who remember these activities of the right hon. Lady, which were captured very accurately by the correspondent who wrote the article, will wonder—and have been wondering increasingly over the last 12 months—


what happened to the right hon. Lady's two shopping baskets. Some of us had a certain affection for them as they were trotted out up and down the country. But we have heard not a thing from the right hon. Lady about prices under the Conservative Government now that she has some responsibility for them.
I also remind the House that the Labour Party constantly warned the public of the price increases which would occur under a Conservative Government. The reaction that we got from the Conservative Party was one of constant denials. For example, in The Daily Telegraph, of the following day, 25 April, there was a headline
 Thatcher denounces school milk and VAT 'scares '.
That was a denial from the now Prime Minister that there would be a doubling of VAT, and a denial—if one can believe it—that 10p would be added to the cost of school meals—10p!
I might add, for good measure, the Prime Minister's denial on another occasion that prescription charges would be drastically increased under a Conservative Government.
But perhaps the most interesting denial of the many uttered during the election campaign came from the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. My hon. Friends will remember that during the election campaign, Mrs. Shirley Williams produced figures to show what would be the increase in the cost of living if VAT were increased from its then level of 8 per cent. to its present level of 15 per cent. This drew an immediate and angry denial from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said that the figures that Mrs. Williams had used at that morning's Labour press conference had no basis in reality. He went on to say
 It is high time Labour stopped spreading scares about our policy ".
Then, amazingly enough, he said of Mrs. Williams:
 She was assuming that VAT goes up to 15 per cent.
However, in his first Budget the right hon. and learned Gentleman put VAT up to 15 per cent. Who was spreading scares about Tory policy? Did not the Labour Party predict accurately and precisely the

consequences of electing a Conservative Government?
We know of the equivocations in which the right hon. Lady and others indulged on the future of the Price Commission. They said that it would be reviewed but certainly not abolished. Yet, within a few days, the Prime Minister, during the debate on the Queen's Speech, committed the Government to abolishing the Price Commission. It was carried out by the passing of the Competition Bill. Not only does the House know better, now that the Government have been in office for 12 months, but the public know better. How many people would have voted Conservative had they known that, within 12 months, inflation would be at 20 per cent. and mortgages at 15 per cent.?
Let us consider how Government policies have contributed to our soaring cost of living. In his first Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer recklessly and foolishly doubled the rate of value added tax. At one stroke he added four points to the retail price index. He made ritual and hollow references to the need to control inflation and promptly embarked upon policies, through the doubling of VAT and other increases, which set off another vicious upward twist to the prices spiral. Hardly any economic commentator does not agree that the VAT decision was the important impetus to the soaring cost of living and the rising inflation from which we now suffer.
At that time the theme of the Government and the Chancellor was the incentive of tax cutting. We hear precious little these days about incentives, either for individuals or companies. The truth is that Tory policies—taking income tax cuts into account as well as increases in mortgage rates and all the other increases—have left most individuals much worse off than they were prior to the Conservatives being elected. Only the very well-off gain hugely from the tax cuts at the top of the scale. The rest of us are left to pay the costs of the Chancellor's folly. It was a " Smart Alec " Budget. If the Government's principal aim was to comtrol inflation, which they now say is their objective, the Chancellor should not have touched VAT but should have concentrated on holding down the cost of living.
Since that Budget the Government have deliberately forced up a wide range of prices. The energy industries are an


example. Believe it or not, the Government's policy is to force up gas prices to 10 per cent. above the excessive rate of inflation from which we now suffer. Within a year, gas prices will increase by 29 per cent. and electricity prices by 20 per cent.
Mortgage rates are at the record level of 15 per cent. That has enormous consequences for family budgets. As each further cut in public expenditure is made, rents and rates for most of our people will be pushed up. It is not just a case of the Government failing to act to influence the level of inflation. They are deliberately causing price increases by their policies, particularly in the financing of the publicly owned industries such as energy and transport. The cuts in those industries will be passed on in increased costs and fares.
Not all price increases are the responsibility of the Government. Increases in the price of oil, for example, are bound to be reflected in domestic inflation, although I did not notice much appreciation of that in Conservative criticism of the last Labour Government. Our case is that the Government have needlessly and recklessly poured fuel on the fires of inflation by their policies.
What do they promise for the future? Apparently the Government adhere through thick and thin to only one policy—the famous control of the money supply. Confidence in that policy seems to waver from time to time on the Government Benches. There are a number of sceptics on the Government Back Benches, and sometimes the rot spreads to the Front Bench. We read with interest the recent speech by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. He was the man who, a few weeks ago, promised us three to 10 years of austerity. Now we know that there is no mechanistic connection between the control of the money supply and the rate of domestic inflation. The right hon. Gentleman is waiting for a swallow and a summer. He says that one swallow might not presage a summer. Perhaps there is not even a mechanistic connection between swallows and summers.
The Prime Minister says that everything will be all right but that there is an 18-month time lag. Unfortunately, the Chief Secretary forgot about that in

his speech. He told us that there would be a time lag of, perhaps, three years. There are many variables and other difficulties in the way of the Government. Some of the variables are becoming in-finately variable.
A commentator in the Financial Times, who is known to be sympathetic to the general trend of Government policies, said that even if Government policies could be made to stick for the control of the money supply—and there is some doubt about that—the 12 monthly increase in inflation would still be in the low teens in 1982, two years ahead. We shall see.
Even if inflation is reduced a little by the policies to which the Government are committed, the cost to our industrial and economic development and standards of living will be catastrophic. Damage has already been done to our industry by a combination of high exchange rates and a 17 per cent. minimum lending rate. Appalling predictions were made in the Red Book, published at the time of the Budget. A drop in output in manufacturing industry will take place in the next three or four years. The commonly and widely held view of economic commentators is that unemployment cannot fail to reach 2,250,000 in the next two or three years. Many of our poorest fellow citizens know all too well of the appalling damage to our public services caused by the Government's cuts in financing.
Our indictment is a double one. First, Government policies have caused our soaring cost of living. Second, and perhaps even worse, the only policies that they propose to remedy the situation will cause incalculable damage to industry, jobs and the public services. That is why, above all, we call upon the House to support the motion.
Unfortunately only Members of the House will be able to express their views by their votes. Were the public, only one year after the Tories gained power on a fraudulent prospectus, given the same opportunity to express their views by their votes, this incompetent and tattered Government would be swept from power.

The Minister for Consumer Affairs (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim): I had hoped that advancing years would bring with them some form of cynicism that would


stand one in good stead when the time came. But, honestly, when one looks at the terms of the motion and listens to the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith), one can only marvel at the breathtaking cheek of members of the Labour Party. When they were in government they presided over a rate of price increases of a staggering and unprecedented 110 per cent., including no fewer than 83,000 individual grocery price increases. Yet they presume today to lecture this Government about rising prices. The right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Government who were responsible for that gruesome record. For him to attempt to tell this Government what they should be doing about inflation is like Jack the Ripper lecturing the police academy on the prevention of crimes of violence.
I do not wish to be harsh on the right hon. Gentleman, because he has many pleasant qualities in debate. If those pleasant qualities are added to my charitable nature, I shall resist the temptation to accuse the right hon. Gentleman of hypocrisy. Selective amnesia would more aptly describe the right hon. Gentleman's stance. He itemised ways in which, as he claimed, the Government's policies have deliberately put up prices. Does his memory serve him so ill that he has forgotten all the specific steps that his Government took, with his support, to increase prices during their period of office? I cannot deal with each and every one of those in a debate as curtailed as this will be.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about school meal prices. Did he vote, for example, against the 108 per cent. increase in school meal charges imposed by his Government during their period of office? Of course he did not. He supported it. Did he vote against the measures in successive Budgets under his Government that added almost 10 per cent. to the retail price index? Of course he did not, He supported them. Did he oppose the economic policies of his Government that led directly to the fall in the value of the pound, adding about 10 per cent. to the retail price index during their period of office? Of course he did not. He supported them.
The right hon. Gentleman neither opposed nor criticised any of the measures

taken by his Government which added over 20 per cent. to the retail price index and at the same time put 5p on the standard rate of income tax. Nor did the majority of his right hon. or hon. Friends oppose those measures, any more than they criticised or opposed their Government's disastrous economic policies—their over-spending and over-borrowing, which fuelled the fires of inflation that we are now attempting to extinguish.
The simply truth is that if the right hon. Gentleman's Government had had the courage and the honesty to face the realities as we are facing them today, and if they had not squandered precious time and resources for political gain—let alone paying the bills—we would not be facing the current unacceptably high rate of inflation today, about which he has the gall to complain.
That was not their way. Their way was to embark on a succession of so-called prices policies aimed at hiding inflation in the short term, instead of curing it. Those policies were not only futile, but were expensive and damaging, and they cruelly misled people into believing that inflation was being tackled, instead of merely being disguised and delayed. They embarked on legislation such as the Price Commission Act, which cost £7½ million, to restrain the retail price index by a derisory one-tenth of 1 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman made no mention of the Price Commission. [HON. MEMBERS ]: " He did."]

Mr. John Smith: The right hon. Lady is now realising one of the difficulties of writing her speech before hearing mine. I did mention the Price Commission.

Mrs. Oppenheim: If the right hon. Gentleman referred to it, he referred to it merely en passant, yet it was supposed to be central to the previous Government's policy. It was typical of the cosmetic policies adopted by his Government—policies that were a perfect example of attempting to prevent inflation by means of trying to stop a haemorrhage with sticking plaster.
As the right hon. Gentleman told us this afternoon, he is still advocating the same stale and failed prescription that he followed in government. It was the fatal combination of those cosmetic prices policies, together with the profligate econonomic policies of his Government, which resulted in the worst record on prices for


300 years. Unfortunately, although he will not be prepared to accept it, the evil that men do lives on after them. The lingering consequences of those policies caused a substantial part of the inflation for which he is attempting to blame us today.
Part of the paucity of the right hon. Gentleman's case was emphasised by the fact that he spent a full four minutes reading from an amusing article in The Daily Telegraph which, incidentally, contained not one quotation from me promising any quick or easy solutions for the soaring rate of inflation which I said we were bound to inherit. Among other things, he mentioned the increases in gas prices, but he did not mention the increase of 10 per cent. in gas prices imposed by his Government. Of course we accept that the current rate of inflation is far too high——

Mr. loan Evans: Did not the Conservative Party, during the general election campaign, give the impression that it would reduce the rate of inflation, which then stood at 10 per cent? It has doubled in the last 12 months. The Government have increased prescription charges from 40p to £1—which they said they would not do. VAT was increased from 8 per cent. to 15 per cent. There has been a whole range of increases. The Government have taken measures in the last 12 months which are the reverse of what they told the electorate they would do.

Oppenheim: The hon. Member must not be over-encouraged by my announcement during the Committee stage of the Competition Bill that he had a way with me and try to interrupt now. I made no such prediction. The only prediction that I made during the general election campaign was that there would be no quick and easy way of containing inflation. I said that if a Labour Government were returned to power inflation would go higher as a result of their policies.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North that the current rate of inflation is far too high. I accept, as he says, and as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor have said, that it will, unfortunately, go higher before it starts to go down later in the year. It is the Government's overriding

priority, through all our economic policies, and through the stimulation of competition, to overcome inflation, to bring it down to a tolerable level and to keep it there.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does the right hon. Lady know what the interest rates are?

Mrs. Oppenheim: The restoration of a sound economy is fundamental to the defeat of inflation. We heard very little about economic policy from the right hon. Gentleman—in contrast to the motion before the House. That is why we are resolutely tackling the daunting and deep-seated problems that we inherited, and we shall continue to do so until they are resolved.
I remind the House of the magnitude of the task and of our daunting inheritance. We inherited from the Labour Government accelerating inflation, accelerating raw material costs, accelerating pay settlements, and an acceleration in the money supply. In their last year in office the Labour Government were printing money at twice the level of inflation. We inherited a hugely swollen public sector borrowing requirement, a deteriorating balance of payments and low productivity. Not only did oil prices—as the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged—almost double last year, but commodity prices, exclusive of oil, have risen by almost 10 per cent. during our period of office. In comparison, under the previous Government, commodity prices rose on average by less than 2 per cent. a year. The right hon. Gentleman neglected to mention those factors. I am sure that it was not his intention to mislead the House. It was probably an oversight.
The right hon. Gentleman was strangely silent about rate increases, which weigh so heavily on many families struggling to make ends meet. Why was he so silent about rate increases? Was it perhaps because the increases are highest in the spendthrift Labour-controlled authorities—averaging 41 per cent. in 31 London boroughs? Over the past five years the average has been well over 100 per cent. in Sheffield. Of course, it was an oversight on the right hon. Gentleman's part that led him not to mention rate increases.
All these factors have contributed substantially to the current rate of inflation.


If the Govenment had not embarked quickly and resolutely on the necessary measures—cuts in public expenditure, restraint of the money supply and a number of other unpalatable but necessary measures—inflation would have been even higher today. If we had embarked on the levels of expenditure that the Opposition have been pressing on us continuously over the past year, we would have had hyper-inflation, hyper-taxation and a drastically devalued pound.
Without a strong pound, which the right hon. Gentleman criticised, prices would rise even more and import prices would be pushed even higher. The strong pound has benefited every consumer. It is substantial evidence of confidence in our domestic policies. The Labour Party has characteristically denounced the welcome relief from inflation that has been brought about by a strong pound. Worse still, and paradoxically in the light of the motion before the House, it has gone so far as to call for the deliberate creation of inflation to reduce the value of the pound.
It is all there in the words of the former Financial Secretary to the Treasury during the debate on the Budget on 1 April. The right hon. Gentleman repeated his astonishing proposal at Prime Minister's Question Time this afternoon. I remind the House of the words of the Leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister. He said:
 it is important to maintain the stability of our currency. The increase in interest rates is, partly, a protection for that purpose. That will help to keep down inflations."—[Official Report, 8 February 1979; Vol. 962, c. 556.]
Where was his right hon. Friend the former Financial Secretary? Let the House remember that the minimum lending rate at the time was 15 per cent.

Mr. John Smith: If we have the advantages of a high exchange rate that the right hon. Lady claims, surely it is even more staggering that the Government have increased the rate of inflation to 20 per cent. Will she kindly explain at some stage how increasing the rate of VAT from 8 per cent. to 15 per cent. helped to bring down the rate of inflation?

Mrs. Oppenheim: First and foremost, the rate of inflation would have been a good deal higher if the exchange rate had not been so strong. I shall answer the right hon. Gentleman's question about VAT rates when he tells the House why the Labour Party wants a weak pound and higher inflation. How will that benefit consumers?

Mr. Mike Thomas: The right hon. lady has not explained how, in spite of the advantages of a strong pound, the inflation rate has doubled. She tells us that that has nothing to do with Government policy, which I find hard to believe. Perhaps she will explain a simple matter that relates to the strong pound. Why is it that her right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said today that monetary compensatory amounts are to be adjusted, so that the benefits of a strong pound for food in the European Community are to be thrown away by the Government?

Mrs. Oppenheim: My right hon. Friend said nothing of the sort. The hon. Gentleman is wrong on two counts—[Interruption.] I have given the House specific details of why the rate of inflation is so high despite the strong pound, without which the rate would be even higher. I shall repeat the reasons—the accelerating increase of the money supply that we inherited from the previous Labour Government, accelerating pay increases that we inherited from the Labour Government, accelerating inflation that we inherited from the Labour Government, accelerating raw material prices—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. I have been tolerant. It is not the custom of the House for hon. Members to remain seated and shout across the Chamber. It is unfair on those who are speaking. If hon. Members wish to intervene, will they please stand up and ask whether they might do so?

Mrs. Oppenheim: I think that I have given the House adequate reasons why the rate of inflation is so high despite the strength of the pound, without which it would be very much higher. I hope that Labour Members are ashamed of the


fact that they have been calling for additional inflation by urging the Government to devalue the pound and so impose on consumers unnecessary burdens and unnecessary inflationary pressures.
So great is the concern of the Labour Party about inflation that it does not really care about these matters. The truth is that Labour Members have neither a monopoly of concern about inflation and rising prices, nor the solutions. We are more concerned than they are about rising prices. The difference between the Opposition and the Government is that the Government's concern did not start on 3 May 1979. Our approach is fundamentally different from theirs. It is to tackle the root causes of inflation to prevent it from happening in the first place, instead of merely trying to disguise it once it has already happened.
The problems that have to be tackled and overcome will not easily or quickly be resolved. We have never promised that they would.

Mr. Ron Lewis: The right hon. Lady did not say that in May.

Mrs. Oppenheim: That is precisely what we said in our manifesto and during the election campaign.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already indicated that it is not customary for hon. Members to be seated and shout across the Chamber. It is certainly not customary to speak from the Cross Benches, as the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) is doing.

Mrs. Oppenheim: The root cause of the inflation that is with us today is excessive growth in the money supply—started by the previous Labour Government, and in real earnings at a time of static productivity. The former cause is already being brought under control. It is essential that the latter should follow.
It should be remembered, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out recently, that a substantial element in this year's public sector pay awards is the result of post-dated cheques left by the previous Labour Government—the so-called catching up settlements that inevitably follow several years of rigid pay policy.
If settlements are too high in the private sector, the consequences will be pain-

ful for the work forces concerned and for the companies for which they work. The combination of vigorous competition and a tight money policy will make it increasingly difficult for those settlements to be passed on in higher prices.
If public sector settlements continue at such a rate, without any commensurate improvement in efficiency and productivity where that is possible, that can only mean higher prices for everyone. To some extent the new powers in the Competition Act 1980 to examine public sector costs and efficiency will help to expose and remedy inefficiency if and where it exists in the public sector. At the same time, recognition by the work forces concerned of the consequences of excessive pay claims in future is essential.
We are often accused by the Labour Party—once again predictably by the right hon. Gentleman—of putting too much emphasis on monetarism. Personally, I dislike the term. I prefer to call it economic common sense, and we cannot have too much of that. The Government do not claim to have invented such policies, nor are we the first to pursue them. The record of any major industrial company in the Western world leads to a direct correlation between countries with sound economic policies and low rates of inflation, and vice versa. The evidence is there for all to see, and it is no coincidence that the countries with low rates of inflation and strong economies are those that have pursued policies similar to those that we are now pursuing.
We do not have to look abroad for such evidence. Even the previous Labour Government managed to get down inflation while they were following the monetary policies dictated by the International Monetary Fund. West Germany, for example, has had to face the same increases in raw material prices as Britain. It has no North Sea oil, yet it has still managed to contain inflation over the past 10 years to a remarkable extent.
We are determined to restore that kind of economic strength and stability to this country. Part of the treatment, which was rendered inevitable by our inheritance, has and will lead to some higher prices in the short and medium term. Although that is regrettable and painful to many consumers, we believe that it is justified if it will produce in the longer term an effective and enduring cure.
It is a cure that is essential for the economic survival of this country. It is essential if consumers are to be protected from the regularly re-occuring ravages of inflation, from which they have suffered for so long. That cure is the objective of all our policies. We make no apologies for facing those realities or for rejecting the political quackery of the Labour Party. The motion—which I call upon the House to reject—has a hollow ring. It is founded on hypocrisy. It condemns a situation for which the Labour Party is largely responsible. It rejects the constructive and realistic policies that we are following.
The fight against inflation still has to be won. [HON. MEMBERS: " Hear, hear".] A week may be a long time in politics, but a year is not a long time in economics. At last, after five years of economic degradation, we have a policy that can win, and a Government who are determined to see that it does.

Mr. J. Grimond: Most prices are high and rise steadily under all Governments, because more and more money is claimed and obtained by every interest group in this country, yet with no comparable increase in production. As salaries and wages rise every year, industries and services are bound to try to make some profit by putting up prices. When production is hardly rising, annual pay and salary increases will inevitably lead to inflation. Professor Friedman did not make that discovery. As the Mnister for Consumer Affairs said, it is common sense. It is not a question whether one should control the money supply—of course one should control it. It is a question of how to do it.
One must take into account the amount of wages that may be saved, the velocity of circulation and credit. Prices may increase as a result of an increase in the cost of imported raw materials and oil. However, there is no logical necessity why our oil prices should follow world oil prices. Printing more money is no solution to the higher cost of imported raw materials. Control of the money supply is essential, and will remain essential whatever other policies a Government may pursue. If one has a prices

and incomes policy, one will still have to control the money supply.
Another major element in inflation and high prices is the demand for goods and services from those who do not produce. That is one reason why it is essential to reduce the number of bureaucrats, and, even more importantly, we should stop a great deal of unnecessary public expenditure. Even if we get the money supply under control and reduce the dead weight of unproductive demand on our resources, two essentials will remain. First, we must curb the annual and automatic demands of every profession, institution and trade union for more money. Such demands may be made regardless of whether they have made any increased effort. At the back of those demands is the fragmentation of the country into competing bureaucracies which simply look to their own interests. There is an absence of any general will to look to the needs of the country as a whole. It is a moral or political problem, not one of economics.
If we are to assert the general good over competing interests, change must start at the top. At present we are simply chasing one another's tails. If one trade union gets a rise, others feel that they should get one. The Civil Service and other professions then demand "comparability ". The rising spiral goes on. No one will admit that he has enough money or that the need for his particular organisation may have decreased, or that it should economise.
Those who are at the top of the scale should lead the fight against this appalling disease. That is one reason why I believe that it was a mistake to increase the Queen's Civil List. That is why it is wrong to make increases of 20 to 25 per cent. in the salaries of top public servants. In addition, unless those who control our affairs feel the pinch of inflation more sharply, they will have little incentive to reduce it. At present the poorer people suffer most from inflation and from the methods taken to contain it. Many of those at the top, who receive annual increases, index-linked pensions and a great deal of their heating and transport free, are insulated against rising prices. That becomes more true every year.
The Government apparently believe that when considering pay increases there is one law for the well-off and another for the poor and for the workers. That is


topsy-turvy and makes confidence in their proclaimed battle against inflation impossible. Let no one say that a small increase for the top bureaucrats makes no difference. There is such a thing as example, a golden rule and a need for those at the top to practise what they preach.
The treatment of the public services has shaken the faith of this country in the Government's ability to tackle inflation. It is essential to award those who do not put in excessive demands. At present, nurses, physiotherapists and others—chiefly women—who do not indulge in restrictive practices or strikes come off worst. The bankers, the highly paid and the most aggressive trade unions are doing quite well out of this Government. The Government must tackle that issue.
The main argument in favour of an incomes policy is that as long as there is no comprehension of the general good it may at least make inflation more tolerable for the weaker members of the community. It can be adjusted to help those most in need and, to some extent, to curb those who have enough.
So-called free collective bargaining has meant that the strongest and most disruptive win. So far incomes policies have not always led to a desirable result. I emphasise that an incomes policy may be necessary in present conditions but that it will not of itself cure inflation. On the contrary, it may make inflation respectable. If the figure is fixed at 10 per cent., everyone may claim that amount and as a result one gets a statutory inflation rate of 10 per cent. However, unless something can be done to curb the runaway increase in prices, we may well come to such a policy.
With 1½ million unemployed and North Sea oil to protect the pound, should we not try the Keynesian formula of increasing investment and of trying to take up the slack in the economy? One objection may be that revenues from the North Sea are grossly mismanaged. When Keynes wrote of investment, he meant productive and needed investment. Today, too much of what passes for investment is either a contribution to the social services—in the form of keeping going industries that would otherwise close—or it is not investment but waste.
One key to our recovery is increased productivity. Not enough attention has been paid to that. The Government would

do well to get together with the financial organisations in the City. They would also do well to remove the monopoly powers of the nationalised industries.
At present, credit and interest rates are the Government's main weapons in the control of the money supply. They have also increased indirect taxes, such as VAT and those on fuel. However, they should reconsider those weapons. They hit not those who cause inflation but the productive part of the country. They are hitting the wrong people, and so are increases in VAT and fuel costs. Putting extra taxation on fuel means that my constituency suffers not a 20 per cent. increase but a 30 per cent. increase in the cost of fuel because there is a special surcharge. If that is not enough, I do not know what is.
On the Government's credit policy, I do not believe that the British banking system is supplying industry with the services that it expects. I urge the Government to look at the way in which the banks behave in other countries, for example, in Japan. I also urge them to look at varying interest rates. The Government talk about the need to encourage small businesses, but there is nothing more crippling to such businesses than a very high rate of interest.
It is certainly one of the main duties of a Government to keep the currency stable. The trouble is that the Government are becoming just another interest in the competition. They are no longer looking after the general interests of the country. Perhaps the time has come to denationalise the Bank of England and return control of money and credit to other than Government hands. I do not know whether any Government can be trusted, particularly when an election is coming along, to handle this in the general interest.
Let us be clear that there is nothing mysterious about high prices; nor is anyone else responsible but the pressure groups who ask constantly for more money while production is falling, and Governments which give way to them. That is why prices are high.
It must be stressed that Governments, to do them justice, very often give way at public request and there is a continual clamour in this country from the public for more services, more unproductive expenditure, and higher wages and salaries


to be paid for by the Government. Therefore, while the Government must have the ultimate responsibility, they are certainly not the only organisation in the country that is clamouring for more. Some blame must be attached to the public at large, and particularly the bodies into which the public is organised.

Mr. John Butcher: In the hope of catching your eye this afternoon, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I did a little preparation at lunch time today when I searched for some evidence of a counter-inflationary policy, a rethink or any new ideas from the Opposition on ways in which prices, or the pressures which cause increased prices, could be reduced. I am afraid that there was a dearth of material. I was given some unexpected assistance from a gentleman in the Tea Room, who said that he was from the Parliamentary Labour Party. He presented me with a document entitled "The Threat to Industry and the Welfare State ", with the subtitle " A Crisis of Monetarism and the TUC Alternative ".
On the basis that what the TUC says today the Labour Party will say tomorrow, and on the basis that this seems to be the only policy document available that gives some idea of the Labour Party's intentions, I spent a few moments looking at this alternative counter-inflationary policy. It is an interesting and somewhat natty presentation, with a juxtaposition of colums headed " Myth " and " Fact ". The first myth runs as follows:
 The way to cure inflation is to control the money supply and put up unemployment.
The corresponding fact is:
 Prices and unemployment are going up together. Direct controls are needed on prices as part of a consensus on economic policy.
The first myth is not so much a myth as a simplification. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has written an admirable pamphlet entitled " Monetarism is not Enough ". In that, he and many of his colleagues in the Cabinet say that if we do not get the money supply right all the other things that are factors in the cause of inflation will have no effect at all. They will lack any firm foundation.
Like the right hon. Member for Orkney

and Shetland (Mr.Grimond), I agree that there are other causes of inflation. He referred to a very relevant cause—the link between productivity and income, and I shall say more about that later.
I return to the fact that prices and unemployment are going up together. It is true to say that the term " stagflation " was probably coined in the aftermath of the return of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) from London airport on that fateful day three or four years ago. With a stroke of genius he managed to coincide increased unemployment with increasing prices, and a balance of payments problem to boot. He was the first Chancellor since the war to get those three factors to deteriorate simultaneously. Therefore, it ill-behoves Labour Members to accuse us of all the ills with which we have been identified, because we are the inheritors of a difficult set of problems.

Mr. Sheerman: Mr. Sheerman rose——

Mr. Butcher: I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Member, but I think that he should have been more polite earlier when he interjected during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs.

Mr. Sheerman: I tried to intervene in the right hon. Lady's speech, but she refused to give way to anyone. Is the hon. Member suggesting that the Conservative Government find themselves in a position, in 1980, that is worse in terms of the money supply and the general economic position than the one that we inherited in 1974 after the printing of money under the Barber regime? Is he really serious about that, or has he failed to study the economic history of this country?

Mr. Butcher: I am delighted to take that point. If there had been no changes in our fiscal policies as a result of the Chancellor's first Budget, we should have had to find an additional £5·5 billion by the end of next year—that would have been the size of the increase in the public sector borrowing requirement. I challenge the hon. Member to say how he would fund that increase in the borrowing requirement, particularly as in his earlier interjection from a sedentary position he challenged my right hon. Friend over interest rates. Surely, if we are to reduce


interest rates, as we are trying to do, we must first attack the public sector borrowing requirement. I have every confidence that once interest rates start to fall, they will fall rapidly. I know that it is dangerous to make predictions of this sort, but I stress that I have every confidence that when interest rates start to fall, they will do so rapidly.
The second myth in the TUC pamphlet says:
 Competition and market forces are the answers to Britain's industrial problems.
Juxtaposed in the " fact " column is this:
All successful industrial countries rely on Government intervention and protection of their basic industries. Government must plan to regenerate British industries and protect our industries from unfair competition from imports.
Again the statement of the myth is more of a simplification. We have abolished the Price Commission, and rightly so. We are replacing it with the Competition Bill. I shall give an example of what this Bill will do. It will tell a washing machine manufacturer, for example, that he may no longer deny a wholesaler or a particular retailer access to his products because he is selling them at above the rate which the manufacturer would not find profitable. In other words, certain manufacturers will not be allowed to restrict the outlets through which they supply their products to the general public. That attacks the mechanism of the mark-ups that one gets in middle ground between the manufacturer and the customer. That is the real way to tackle price increases.
Let us contrast that with the Price Commission. In an earlier debate the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that to tackle increases in prices through the Price Commission was tantamount to saying that rainfall was caused by wet pavements. There is an awful lot of sense in that reasoning. When the Price Commission was in evidence we were trying to deal with a train of events, the cause of which had long since gone out of control.
I return to that statement in the pamphlet which is an alleged fact, namely:
 All successful industrial countries rely on Government intervention and protection of their basic industries.
There is no qualification of that sentence. The word " rely " is used. May I cite

the example of Cuba? Let us look at a piece of Government intervention in that country. I am told that the Cuban economy is deteriorating rapidly. Someone, somewhere—a Cuban official—decided that he knew better than the tobacco growers in his country and those who worked in the industry. He wished to introduce a new strain of tobacco. However, that strain was more delicate and more susceptible to disease, with the result that there was a disastrous crop. The result—coupled with complications in the sugar industry—is that an interventionist economy has produced so much disorder and discomfort that 10,000 Cubans who wish to flee the country are waiting in the compound of the Peruvian Embassy. That is an example of intervention par excellence. An economy can be ruined by a tiny decision from a small bureaucrat.
I agreed with much of what was said by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, particularly his comments on productivity, but my evidence, again, is from the TUC pamphlet. It says that investment per head in manufacturing industry from 1970 to 1974 was: the United Kingdom, £240; West Germany, £450; and the United States, £740.
On the facing page, the question about our poor investment rate is answered by dealing with productivity of new plant, with the United Kingdom as a base of 100. The figures are: Sweden 145; Japan, 157; and West Germany, 190 If, at constant prices, we took the amount of investment in plant in the United Kingdom and compared that with equal investment in West Germany or the United States, we would find that those latter countries enjoy a far better return on their investment.
I hope that there is agreement that we have restrictive practices in this country. Somehow, we insist that when we instal a new machine in a car plant track we retain the same number of men to oil or paint it. We hoard the labour. Whether or not it is admitted officially, there is a great fear in the trade union movement that productivity equals redundancy, or conversely—and more horrifically—that lack of productivity, or low productivity, equals more employment. Some shop stewards say that they are not interested in productivity because it means job losses, smaller union


branches and fewer union subscriptions. That happens. It is part of their psyche. We should face that problem head on and recognise that it as a factor that contributes to inflation.
I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about the desirability of certain aspects of previous incomes policies. I believe that an incomes policy of sorts is currently being operated by cash limits in the public sector—if public sector wages increase too rapidly they will have to be paid for by increasing redundancies and by money supply in the private sector. It will be a long and difficult task—but one in which I believe the Government are succeeding—to persuade our people that those two tactics amount to one simple thing, namely, that we do not get something for nothing. To use a good old Yorkshire expression " You don't get owt for nowt ". That is the Government's underlying philosophy on incomes, though I am loth to describe it as an incomes policy, with all that such a description evokes.
I said that I had found little in my search for inspiration. However, not only did I find the TUC pamphlet, but behind the glass cases in the Library Corridor I noticed two books. One, a large tome, was called " Socialist Economics ", and next to it was a book by Eugene Northrop called " Riddles in Mathematics ". I wonder whether what we heard from the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) was not so much a well thought out and argued motion, but a riddle. Perhaps we should try to find somewhere in his statement a hint of what will appear in the next Labour Party manifesto. I suggest that what will appear will be a Price Commission and platitudes.

Miss Betty Boothroyd: I do not agree with the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) that we have heard a riddle from my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith). However, I noted that the right hon. Lady the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) gave us 25 minutes of history but said nothing about what her Government would do. My right hon. and hon. Friends might find me in favour of cutting public expenditure if the closure of the right hon. Lady's Department could be

guaranteed. Her Department does little good for the consumer or the general public.
The right hon. Lady mentioned, en passant, that the Government's new legislation had come into being this month. She said little about the twin mechanisms on which we have been lectured over the last two months. One of the twins gives the Director of Fair Trading the power to investigate a company which he believes is carrying on anti-competitive activities which prevent market competition.
The other twin which came into being a couple of weeks ago provides powers for the Secretary of State for Trade to order the Office of Fair Trading to investigate those price rises which he thinks are of major concern to the public. We heard very little of that in the right hon. Lady's speech.
A variety of price rises is causing public anxiety. I mention two sectors in which I believe the Secretary of State has power to act. I remind the House that when the Labour Party was in government we asked the Price Commission—in the public interest—to look into the activities of the milling and baking industry. We did that because two of the large milling and baking concerns controlled about 70 per cent. of the market. We felt that their activities were not conducive to competition, were not in the interests of the consumer and were not in the interests of our counter-inflation policy.
When the Conservatives came to office the Secretary of State for Trade stopped that inquiry. Why did he do that? We were (old—no doubt I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that it was not in the public interest to continue with it. That is nonsense. Control over the market and over such basic commodities as bread and flour--so vital to the family—is of public concern. Is it not time that this newborn baby which breathed life for the first time a couple of weeks ago was used by the Minister to take action in this context?
I turn now to the increase in petrol prices. I accept right away that international oil prices have been on the increase and that they have an enormous effect. When the last Labour Government were in office those prices increased massively four times in that perod. When we left office 12 months ago I was paying about 80p for a gallon of petrol.


Deliberate Government policies have increased the price of petrol twice during the last 12 months. The cost of living has been put up to that extent by deliberate Government financial policy.
However, that is not the end of the matter. As one petrol company puts up its prices, others follow suit. They leap-frog over each other in their efforts to get the maximum amount out of the mugs—the motorists and the travellers. If one company can increase prices, so can another, and there is nothing to stop them. Petrol now costs a copper or two short of £1·40 per gallon and, coupled with that fact, we should note the surplus profits made by the petrol companies.
The Financial Times carried an article on 14 March headed " BP after-tax profits soar ". The article recorded that after tax the profits of BP last year soared to £1½ billion. That was nearly four times the profits of the group for the previous year.

Mr. Michael Brown: Is the hon. Member for West Brom wich, West (Miss Boothroyd) also aware that that same company wrote a cheque to the British Government for the largest amount of revenue they have ever received in one go?

Miss Boothroyd: I certainly hope so. If it had not, I should like to have known why. I should like to continue. Royal Dutch Shell profits were £3 billion. It trebled its income. Therefore, I hope that it wrote out a cheque to the Government. Mobil, Gulf, and Standard Oil all had increases of well over 50 per cent. I hope that they wrote out cheques to the Government, just as I hope Texaco did, because it increased its profits by more than 100 per cent.
I am not saying that such profits should necessarily be denied. However, if, at a time when oil prices are rising as rapidly as they are, companies cannot make profits such as that, they should not be in business. That is the only point that I am making.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has some social conscience. Surely it cannot be right that at a time when profitability is allowed to increase at that rate, and while petrol companies are allowed to increase petrol prices, there is no

mechanism to stop them. Nothing exists to inhibit them. It is a free-for-all. The attitude seems to be " Let us take the mugs for as much as we can get from them." I should like to see a darn sight more of the money returned to the Government.
Surely those who pay at the filling stations have the right to ask for some justice. Surely such profits should not be allowed to continue without those who pay getting some benefit. Therefore, I believe that the Government should take some action. If the right hon. Lady does not think that the combination of the rising cost of petrol, whether to the motorist or the traveller, coupled with profitability, and the anti-competition element is of major concern to the public, I suggest that her antenna is not tuned in to public opinion.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Norman Tebbit): What does the hon. Lady make of the fact that not far from here on a road in East London—the same probably applies to many other parts of London—one can see garages less than 100 yards apart which sell petrol at £1·30 per gallon and £1·40 per gallon, both of which are surviving and both of which are satisfying their customers? Does that suggest to the hon. Lady that there is a great deal of concern in the public's mind about petrol prices?

Miss Boothroyd: There is a great deal of public concern, not only among car owners but also among a lot of small garage owners. One such owner from whom I buy petrol is extremely concerned about the price which he as a retailer has to pay. There is considerable concern about this matter. The competition policy about which we have heard so much from the Government has certainly not been exercised. I have checked the price of petrol in London within the last few days, and I have found it to be nothing less than £1·38 a per gallon to £1·40 per gallon in the area around here that I use.—[HON MEMBERS: "It is an expensive area."]—I am talking about the Edgware Road, and I woud not call that an expensive area. Fortnum and Mason do not happen to sell petrol. The right hon. Lady informed me of that, and it was extremely helpful of her.
We have all been lectured about the new legislation during the past few weeks,


Why does not the right hon. Lady hold a christening party, give it life and use the powers which the Secretary of State and her Department possess, in order to take some action on behalf of the people of this country?

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: The hon. Lady referred to the powers of the Department and the Secretary of State. Will she be more explicit about what the powers under the Competition Act are?

Miss Boothroyd: When the Secretary of State believes that there is major public concern about a price increase, he has the authority to refer it to the office of the Director General of Fair Trading. It is a very small section in the Act which has had very little publicity. But it was referred to extensively in The Times the other day, and I am sure that most hen. Members saw that article.
I shall not continue with the never-ending list of price increases, except to say that they have all taken place within the space of a year. For every £1 which we spent last year, we must now pay £1·20 for the same article or type of service because of the 20 per cent. price increase which has occurred as a result of deliberate Government action.
In their first few months in office, the Government were fond of claiming that Labour had left them a legacy of price increases. In particular, the Minister for Consumer Affairs lectured her Tory lady friends at various garden parties about the legacy of price increase in the Socialist pipeline. I read her speeches avidly. They are better than " The Dandy ". There was never any foundation for that charge about the Socialist pipeline. It was designed by the public relations men in the right hon. Lady's party, and she could never make it stick.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North said, the glimpse into the future is fascinating. Prices will continue to increase because no action has been taken. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury gave the game away only the other day by saying that we face three years of unparalleled austerity and that the Government will not be able to reduce the rising cost of living to the figure of 10 per cent., which it was under Labour, for another three years. What a condemnation that is. In three years'

time, the Government will have just about managed to have brought inflation down to what it was when they assumed responsibility for the management of the country.
It is not a pipeline which the Tories have constructed for their price increases. It is an absolute jet-stream, which will reduce our standards of living and our quality of life not only this year but for many years to come. The people are entitled to know what action the Government will take. The right hon. Lady has given us the history. We want to know what action the Government now propose to take to reverse this trend.

Mr. Peter Fraser: The right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) embarked on what can only be described as a phoney attack on rising prices. Not only does he know that his argument was totally phoney, but it is also clear that the seven or eight Labour Members who were present while he spoke also appreciate it. There were so many flaws in it that even his persuasive style could not disguise them. With good sense, style and reason, the right hon. Gentleman argued that not all price increases which had occurred since the Government had come into office on 3 May could be attributed to their actions. Unremarkably, he pointed to the increases in the world price of oil. Yet before making that apparently noble concession, he attacked the increase in gas prices. In his meteoric rise from the shores of Loch Fyne to his entry in this House, the right hon. Gentleman had responsibility for energy matters for a considerable time. He knows perfectly well that there is a necessary and direct relationship between the price of oil and the price of gas. He cannot escape that fact.
In the last phoney, damp squib attack on the Government in relation to gas prices, even his right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who now has responsibility for energy matters, was forced to concede that had he been in power he would have had to agree that gas prices should rise at least in line with the current level of inflation.

Mr. John Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman go on to make the case for adding


10 per cent. above the current rate of inflation, which is Government policy?

Mr. Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman said that the whole level of the increase in gas prices is a responsibility that the Government must bear. If he wants to advance the argument that the Government must bear responsibility for 10 per cent. of the total increase, that has some logic and reason. It is a wholly dishonest argument to attempt, as the right hon. Gentleman and the Opposition generally have done, to place the blame for the whole increase at the Government's feet.

Mr. loan Evans: A l0p a gallon increase on petrol was imposed in the Government's first Budget, and a further 10p increase was imposed in the second Budget. Twenty pence of the increase from 80p to 130p a gallon was imposed by the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) has made the point that the oil companies are making tremendous windfall profits. Why have the Government not been tackling those windfall profits of 30p a gallon since the election rather than forcing the Gas Council to put up its prices because of the increased petrol prices?

Mr. Fraser: I suggest that, after the debate, the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) takes aside the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North and asks him to explain how much the Ekofisk field will cost in capital expenditure over the next three years. The cost of developing the North Sea, whichever field one examines, is so colossal that profits will be taken up in the development of those fields.
The right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North also attacked the change introduced by the Government in raising the level of VAT in their first Budget. It was wholly right, in my view, that the Government should begin to bring about a substantial switch from direct to indirect taxation. Whatever fun the right hon. Gentleman may have at press conferences during election campaigns—allegations and denials and the like—one matter from which he cannot escape is that the underlying theme of the Conservative Party, for many years in opposition and since coming to power, is that we should make the switch in the style of taxation.
The difficulty for the Government is that there is never a wholly right time to make the switch. So long as such indicators as the retail price index are used, this will necessarily mean that there is apparently a rise in inflation. The Government are pursuing the correct line and the correct approach. What causes great concern in the country is the growing volume of evidence of the amount of money in the black economy that is not being subjected to taxation. The figures range between £5,000 million and £11,000 million. If the switch is made from direct to indirect taxation, there is a far better possibility that sums not being paid in tax will be trapped.
I wish to refer to the switch in VAT. If one looks to the RPI, there has been an effect. One can call it inflationary if one wishes. At the end of the year, however, it will disappear from the index. There will be an adjustment. Will the Opposition, at that point, agree that it has worked through the system? The answer is " No ". They will rely on the argument that a technical adjustment is taking place. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the Government have had to face up to this matter in the last year, I trust that the Opposition will have the courage to admit, at the end of the year, that it has worked its way through the system.
The main attack has been on gas prices and VAT. The change made by the Government in their first Budget was correct and courageous. Nothing stated by the Opposition since then, or during the debate, should lead anyone to have any reason to doubt that.

Mr. Clive Soley: Debates on the cost of living always tend to spill over on to economic policy. It is right that Government and Opposition should exchange views on this matter. One of the differences to which attention needs to be drawn is the impact of the cost of living on particular groups. The biggest difference between the two parties is that the impact of rising prices falls greater on the low income groups under the present Government than under the previous Government.
There will be rises in the cost of living under a variety of Governments, for a variety of reasons, many outside their


control. More within our control is the ability to decide those who will be affected by the increases. Because of the time constraints on this debate, I wish to focus my comments primarily on one area that causes many people increasing concern. I refer to the rise in domestic fuel costs, primarily gas and electricity. I am particularly concerned about the effect on those on low incomes. The average increase in the price of electricity since March 1977 is 42 per cent. For gas, it is about 19 per cent. There are individual variations and variations also between different parts of the country. It is nevertheless a terrifying rise overall.
The rise in electricity prices since March 1979 has been 18 per cent. A figure that I saw recently increased my alarm. I fear that it is only the tip of the iceberg. The London Electricity Board reported—I regret that I cannot give figures for the rest of the country—that in the last 12 months, 3,365 London homes had their electricity disconnected, more than double the figure for the year ended March 1978. In the last 12 months, more than twice as many homes as in the previous year have had the electricity cut off. These homes include families with young children as well as the elderly, despite guidelines laid down by the previous Government.

Mr. Sheerman: Will my hon. Friend agree that this is symptomatic of the lack of understanding on the Government benches? The Cabinet is full of wealthy men and women. It includes five large landowners and two substantial farmers. There have been tremendous increases in farm prices over the last year which have hit the consumer who has to buy goods in the shops to the benefit of the wealthy farmer. Is there not a total lack of understanding in the Government about both fuel prices and general prices?

Mr. Soley: I simply emphasise that everyone must be increasingly concerned about fuel costs, for reasons which I shall explain. It has been possible to argue in the past, as many supporters of free enterprise did, that people must make the best of their own situation. One could say in the past that people should go out and collect wood for a log fire in the home. That is not possible in a high-rise block of flats. Those blocks of flats and modern housing have been brought about by both parties. The reasons are many and com-.

plex. They are not simply political. They are due to passing beliefs among architects. There was a tendency for some years, as the increase in fuel prices continued, to move towards paraffin. Hon. Members know what has happened to paraffin prices recently. There are, in any case, two further dangers about paraffin. It causes acute condensation, particularly in modern buildings and, secondly, it is a serious fire risk. Paraffin is not the answer despite the fact that many people on low incomes depend on it.
Domestic fuel is of criticial importance in a modern urban economy to ordinary people on low incomes. The best way to exemplify this situation is for me to give two or three examples drawn from my constituency, although I do not believe that they could not also be found in the constituency of every hon. Member attending the debate. I am certain that they have got significantly worse in recent years.
The first case concerns a blind mother of a child of 7. She mounted up a gas bill of £80. There were a number of warnings. It is generally agreed that there was a breakdown in liaison between he social worker and the gas board. Whose fault that was I am not concerned with at this point. The point is that gas board employees eventually broke into her flat when she was not there and disconnected the supply. I ask hon. Members to consider what it means to such a person coming back to her flat in a high-rise block and finding the door broken open. I ask hon. Members to consider even more seriously what it means for someone who is blind and alone.
The key to this situation is that that lady was employed as a clerical worker on a Braille typing machine and was earning £42 a week net in August last year. It is difficult to argue that that woman does not deserve extra support of some kind over and above what she was given, in view of the rise in fuel prices in recent years.
The second case concerns a mother of four children. She has had her electricity cut off for several months now. She was working 7½hours a day and earning £22 per week net. One of the reasons for that ridiculously low sum was that she was being grossly and wrongly over taxed—a matter to which I shall return. In desperation, because her fuel bill was now into


four figures—the electricity supply was cut off when the debt reached about £1,500—she took another job which took another seven hours of her day and increased her income to £52 a week net. She was in the catering trade—a well known low paying trade.
After spending some time with her, I discovered that she was not only being over taxed, but was not getting the appropriate education grants and child benefits. However, over and above that, she would have been in difficulty in paying her fuel bill.
The third case concerns a mother of three children under 5. Her electricity supply has been cut off for eight months. She has multiple social, economic and emotional problems and is in need of considerable support. At one time, when she was relying on supplementary benefit, the local office had to decide whether it could pay the fuel bill on a weekly basis. Had it done so, it would have left her—this was in late 1977—with only £12·50 per week to spend on herself and her children.
The position is serious. It has been serious for several years. On the basis of the LEB's figures and of the retail price index percentage increases, it is now becoming infinitely more serious. I suspect that, with the rise in fuel prices that we have seen recently, combined with the rise in paraffin costs, it will get even more serious in the next 12 months. That is the importance of a debate on the cost of living. That is the meat on the bones of the economic argument.
In the past, local authorities might have stepped in to help families such as these who were in need, even though some of them were in employment. The social services departments could step in and, under section 1 of the Children Act, provide help from that source. They are reulctant to do so now because they are having to cut back. The Department of Health and Social Security would have, stepped in in the past, but it is increasingly reluctant to do so now. Also in the past charities were prepared to step in and help. In the past two or three years they have increasingly refused to do so, feeling that it is not for them to pay electricity and gas bills.
I acknowledge that the electricity and gas boards have a problem. Their job is to collect money for services provided. But, to my mind, they take it too far. The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) shakes his head. Is he satisfied that, in the second half of the twentieth century, calling ourselves a civilised society, it is right for a public body to break into the fiat of a blind mother of a seven-year-old child and cut off the gas supply?

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I have been listening with care to the hon. Gentleman's argument. Is he saying that the way to decide which members of the community should receive a fuel subsidy is to look to those who do not pay their bills? Is that a fair guide of need in a modern society?

Mr. Soley: No, far from it. That was not the direction of my argument. First, it is a problem of low income, and we must accept that. But this is where the problem becomes complex. It is a matter not only of fuel prices going up, but of other prices going up. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) said, if VAT is put up to 15 per cent., there will be less to spend on fuel, even if fuel prices have not gone up. Therefore, there will be a major problem for low income groups.
When it comes to considering who should receive help, the problem becomes even more complex. The hon. Gentleman is right that we should not just step in and help the person who does not pay his bill. But should mothers with young children, the elderly, the infirm or the handicapped have their gas or electricity supples cut off? Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to cut off the gas supply to a blind mother of a seven-year-old child and to break into her flat to do so?

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman asks how I would set about it. I refer him to the help that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave in his Budget towards the fuel bills of low income families. That is the way to decide who should have help with fuel bills. We should look at people's incomes and give help to those who need it.

Mr. Soley: That is right, but it is not adequate, and I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would accept that it is not adequate. The hon. Gentleman still misses the point. It may be that the parents are to blame for the mounting fuel bills. But what is the position of the children? We cannot ignore them. Are we to go on perpetuating the problem of family poverty? Even the Secretary of State for Industry has commented on the cycle of family poverty. That is what this debate is about.
There is an urgent need for additional financial help to be given towards fuel bills or for lowering the impact of the cost of living on low income groups. Alternatively, it should be possible for the gas and elecricity boards to review their procedures, because they are not satisfactory if the situations that I have described happen, as they do with increasing frequency in my constituency and, I suspect, in other constituencies.
I have already suggested to the chairman of the London Elecricity Board that the Board should appoint more qualified staff to go into people's debts before they reach such absurd proportions as £1,500. If I was able to find out in a 10-minute discussion in my surgery that a woman was not getting proper tax relief, child benefit or education grants, it should not be beyond the wit of two major domestic fuel suppliers to have a service of that type.
I would mention only one further point—the increasing concern now being expressed by my local authority, which is not Labour-controlled, about the numbers of landlords who are not paying their fuel bills with the result that the gas or elecricity supply is cut off, even though the tenants have been putting money into the meters and the landlords have been taking it out. The problem is that, even though the local authority has power to step in at a certain stage, the two boards switch off the supplies first and that matter cannot be sorted out quickly. That is probably not a matter of low income. I suspect that only one or two landlords do that for reasons of low income. That is a wider part of the problem.
My main concern, with which I hope the Minister will deal in response to the debate, is the increasing problem of fuel poverty. I draw attention to the fact that

the number of homes cut off in London has doubled in the past 12 months. The situation must be similar in other areas of the country and it must be a cause for concern. We have created an environment in which we expect people to live and where they have no alternative fuel supplies. Several of the cases to which I have referred are totally reliant on one fuel, particularly electricity, which is the most expensive. This is a crisis problem for individuals. I hope that it gives some meat to a debate of this character and will give the Government an opportunity to put it right.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: This debate on prices, noticeably ill-attended by Socialist Members whose negative motion is being debated, involves the most fundamental problem inherited by the Government, the most fundamental problem facing the Government and the most fundamental problem that the Government will tackle successfully. That problem is inflation, which manifests itself to our citizens as rising prices.
My confidence in the success of the Government's action is based on one key fact: that they have an understanding of the real cause of inflation that was sadly lacking when the Labour Government were in power, except briefly when the International Monetary Fund had to rescue our economy from threatening disaster because of Socialist maladministration.
Inflation is the underlying sickness which has contributed more to the malaise of this country than has any other factor. It can be tackled successfully only by understanding that, as long as we print money far in excess of the growth of our economy, prices will soar. Too much money chasing too few goods can only result in the continuation of the crisis that we have seen over the years. It follows, therefore, that borrowing additional money to fund expenditure can only make the situation worse.
The Conservative Government are tackling this fundamental problem firmly by reducing public sector spending, recognising that we shall have to experience some difficulty in the short term as a necessary consequence, but in the longer term the way will be paved towards lower inflation and lower taxation.
The Conservative Government were elected last year on a manifesto that included a clear commitment to reduce public sector spending. It is becoming increasingly obvious to everyone that if we are to free ourselves from the continuing economic problems associated with spending more than the country earns, such a policy has to be carried out, and without delay.
I am sure that the few hon. Members who are on the Labour Benches are fully aware of the excellent advertising campaign which has recently graced hoardings throughout the country. The campaign to which I refer evokes the sound notion of supporting the Conservatives to keep Britain out of the red. That is the essence of the nation's difficulties created by Socialist maladministration and based on Socialist lack of understanding.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister said earlier, monetarism is economic common sense. The Conservative Party was elected to put common sense back into British government, and that will be the true mark of its success, not least with regard to inflation and the cost of living.

Mr. loan Evans: The Opposition are fully justified in selecting this subject for debate. Hon. Members who have referred to the low attendance should be aware that Committees are sitting and party meetings are taking place. I notice that only five hon. Members are to be seen on the Government Benches.
The Government's policy on inflation is a complete failure. One argument put forward by a Conservative Member was that when Labour came to power oil prices increased by 400 per cent. and that was a factor in inflation. But then we had to import oil. Now we are producing our own oil. Therefore, as we are almost self-sufficient in oil the rate of inflation should be lower. The Conservative Party went to the electorate saying " Vote Conservative, and we will bring down the cost of living." What they have done is to bring down the living standards of the people. There has been a deliberate attempt by the Government to increase inflation.
When Labour left office inflation had been brought down, with the help of the Price Commission, to 10·8 per cent. The rate of inflation in the first 12 months of this Government has doubled. That is the charge made by the Opposition. The Tories have doubled the rate of inflation, while the Saatchi and Saatchi posters told the British people that they would reduce it.
Let us examine how the rate of inflation has been doubled. Are there external forces at work? The Minister for Consumer Affairs spoke about other Governments. Presumably, she was referring to Germany where the German social democratic Government have kept down the rate of inflation to a figure similar to that which was in force when the Labour Government were in power. She might have been referring to the Austrian social democratic Government, who have kept down the rate of inflation. We cannot blame international circumstances because, as the right hon. Lady said, other Governments in Europe have kept down inflation while under the Tory Government in this country the rate of inflation has doubled.
Let us analyse this 9 per cent. increase in the rate of inflation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) rightly said that the first act of the Government was to increase the rate of VAT from 8 per cent. to 15 per cent., although the Conservatives promised not to raise VAT. Before the Tory Government came to power, the VAT on a television set costing £300 was £24; it is now £45, an increase of £21. Before the Tory Government came to power, the VAT on a motor car costing £4,000 was £320; now it is £600, an increase of £280. That is the party that said it would bring down taxes.

Mr. Murphy: What about income tax?

Mr. Evans: I will come to that. It is the wealthy who have benefited from the tax cuts. The average wage earner has suffered. He has had to pay VAT of 15 per cent. instead of 8 per cent. The increase in VAT represents 3¾ per cent. of the increase in the rate of inflation. The increase in national insurance contributions added another ½ per cent. The cutting of support to local authorities and nationalised industries meant a 1¾ per cent. increase in the inflation rate.
The green pound has been devalued. We have had arguments in the House about the common agricultural policy. We contribute £1,300 million to Europe to keep European food prices down and that leads to our food prices being increased.
If the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister meets Franz Joseph Strauss, who is visiting the Tory Party today, I hope she will not tell that Bavarian political animal that there will be concessions at the forthcoming Summit talks. The right hon. Lady has got herself into difficulties. She thought that the Summit conference would take place in Dublin. She invited Franz Joseph Strauss to meet the Tory Party in the House today thinking that she would already have reached a settlement with Schmidt and the other leaders. But no, it is typical of the Tories that they have arranged for Mr. Strauss to come the weekend before the right hon. Lady goes to wherever she is going to talk about the reduction.
The Tory Government have increased the minimum lending rate from 12 per cent. to 17 per cent., the highest rate that we have had in this country, and yet the Tories used to complain about the level of the rate when the previous Labour Government were in office. That increase has added 1¾ per cent. to the retail price index.

Mr. Murphy: Mr. Murphyrose——

Mr. Evans: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. The borrowing rate has gone up from 10 per cent. to 19 per cent. or more, and 8½ per cent. of that increase of 9 per cent. has been as a result of the fiscal, financial and economic policies which have been put forward deliberately by the Government.

Mr. Murphy: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he agree with me that, having listed the problems as he understandably sees them, he ought also to consider the fact that wages are rising faster than the rate of inflation? He does not seem to have taken that factor into account.

Mr. Evans: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is saying that in defence of the Government. Is he saying that the Government support the fact that wages are rising by 20 per cent?

These are the people who complained, when the Labour Government were in office, that we had a social contract with the trade union movement. We were able year by year to restrain wage levels, which meant that inflation was brought down year by year. As a result, the rate of inflation was far lower when we left office in 1979 than it was when we came into office, following the period in which the Tory Government had been printing money. We remember what happened when Lord Barber as he now is was at the Treasury. There was chaos in the financial markets. The Tories had negotiated with the trade union movement that wages should increase with inflation.

Mr. Butcher: If the hon. Gentleman were to go to his constituency and ask his constituents " Which would you prefer, a low wage/high tax economy or a high wage/low tax economy? "—these are genuine alternatives—what sort of answer does he think he would get?

Mr. Evans: They would tell me that they would prefer a high wage/low tax economy. But under the present Government the steel workers—some of them live in my constituency and some have relatives there—have taken a cut in their living standards. The Government have not tried to bring out a fair incomes policy. They say that they believe in market forces. With the Secretary of State for Industry in the background, they have picked on British Leyland and on the steel industry, while at the same time allowing increases in wages to take place elsewhere. They have picked on certain workers. The strike in the steel industry was deliberately provoked by the Government. The costs of that action will work their way through not only in the steel industry but also in the coal industry, the gas industry and on British Rail. That will be the result of the mad monetarist policies being pursued by the Government.
The Labour Government had a Ministry to deal with prices and consumer protection. The question of prices is very important if we are to seek the co-operation of the people of this country in restraining wage increases. Unfortunately, Tory Members believe in a free-for-all in wages. We are now apparently operating under the market economy, in which the strongest take the largest share,


and in which the philosophy is that of every man for himself and the Devil take the hindmost.
That Tory philosophy is leading to the position where we have 1½ million unemployed, the highest figure since the end of the war. The position will get worse unless we have a reversal of the mad monetarist policies which are being pursued by a cabal in the Cabinet.
It was a mistake to take the prices Minister out of the Cabinet. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim), in her heart, believes that there should have been a Minister in the Cabinet concerned with consumer protection. Increasingly, as we move towards a diffcrent type of society, in which presumably, production will increase, and where there is greater wealth to be shared, we shall become more consumer conscious. That being so, there should be in the Cabinet a Minister who is concerned with prices and with consumer protection. But the right hon. Lady was demoted; she was given the status of Minister of State. The present Prime Minister said " We are not having a Minister in the Cabinet concerned with prices." I believe that Tory Members will regret that decision.
The Opposition have been fully justified in tabling the motion. It is true, as has already been implied, that the effects of the VAT increase will slip out of the retail price index in a month or two, but those who will be buying their cars will still be paying the extra tax imposed by the Government. Those who are buying their television sets will still be paying that tax.
The Government, by their actions, have provided us with a very good poster for the next general election. We shall not need the services of Saatchi and Saatchi to expose the way in which the Tories have undermined the living standards of the people and boosted inflation.

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: Mr. Stephen Dorrell (Loughborough)rose——

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman do his best to resume his seat by 6.30 pm? I am sorry to have to ask him if he will do that.

Mr. Dorrell: I shall be delighted, Mr. Speaker, to resume my seat by 6.30 pm.
I have enjoyed listening to the hon Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans). I heard his speech once or twice before, when we were both on the Standing Committee dealing with the Competition Bill. He has honed it down since then. His phrases are more rounded and his anxiety is more extreme, but it is still a very good speech to listen to, although I find it very difficult to agree with much of it. I enjoyed every minute of it.
I came into the debate at a fairly late stage. I apologise to the right hon Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) for the fact that I did not hear him introduce the subject that we are discussing.
I have been struck forcibly by the fact that all the speeches that I have heard from Labour Members have concentrated on attacking the first 12 months of the Government's record and that not one positive proposal has come from them. In the three minutes remaining to me, I should like to pose three questions to the hon. Gentleman who is to wind up for the Opposition. I should like him to tell the House in what respect he believes his party, if it had been in office in the last 12 months, would have done better.
The Price Commission has been much discussed by Labour Members. When I spoke in the Second Reading debate on the Competition Bill, I said that I would never say in this House that I would never vote for price control. I am still a relatively young man, and in the career that I hope may lie ahead of me I would not wish to bind my hands in that rigid way. History would tend to suggest that that would be unwise.
When the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) introduced the Bill relating to the Price Commission—a body that we rightly abolished—he explained in very simple words that the Price Commission was not a medium for controlling prices. It was a medium, supposedly, for promoting competition or for promoting an efficient economy, but it was not seen as having a direct effect on prices. When the right hon. Gentleman was asked what he thought the Price Commisssion had done to prices, he said that he thought it had had the effect of reducing them by one half of 1 per cent.
When discussing the inflationary pressures that we inherited this time last year, it is not sufficient for Labour Members to say that the Government should have left the Price Commission in situ. By the definition of the man who introduced it, that was not a sufficient policy.
What policies does the Labour Party have to offer for the control of inflation or for the economy in general? Just as there are two Labour Parties, there are alternative economic policies being proposed. I assume that the reason why there are so few Labour Members present for the debate is that they are fighting upstairs about which of the alternatives should be put into practice.
The first alternative is based on comprehensive protection. One branch of the Labour Party would like to introduce comprehensive import controls, because it believes that they would protect our domestic manufacturing industry and create jobs, output and economic stability. But it is impossible to introduce such protection without putting up prices. Labour Members cannot vote for the motion if they believe in that economic strategy. It would lead to rising prices.
The other branch of the Labour Party complains about the strength of the pound. I have some sympathy with that point of view, but Labour Members cannot say that the pound is too high, and, at the same time, complain about the level of inflation. If they argue that the value of the pound should be reduced, in order to improve the prospects of British manufacturing industry, they have to accept that that will have inflationary consequences.
It is difficult for Labour Members to espouse either of those alternatives—and I have not heard of a third course—and vote for the motion.

Mr. John Fraser: It is difficult to have a debate on the cost of living without referring to the Conservative Party's public relations advisers. Let me put a mathematical riddle to the House: if the words Saatchi and Saatchi represented the rate of inflation a year ago, what words represent the rate of inflation today? The answer is, of course, Saatchi, Saatchi, Saatchi and Saatchi.
As so often, we got from the Minister

a history lesson. She is not yet used to the fact that she is a member of the Government. Perhaps one day she will tell us something about the future. The Government inherited 15 months—not one or two months—of single-figure inflation, a buoyant pound, which ought to have had a favourable influence on the rate of inflation, and no crisis over droughts or a hard winter, which affect vegetable prices and so on. But despite many favourable influences, the rate of inflation has doubled in a year.
That is not our only charge. We make four charges—the rate of inflation has doubled, the increase is largely of the Government's own creation, the rate of inflation is getting worse and not better, and the Government have no credible, workable or acceptable strategy for dealing with the matter.
The fact that the inflation rate has doubled is beyond dispute. It is shown by the figures published by the Government and the price surveys that the Minister has been anxious to suppress—thank goodness we still have them in Lambeth. It is shown by people's experience when they go shopping, and it would be shown by the Minister's personal price index if she still produced it.
In opposition, the right hon. Lady had a rather curious index. It included one bottle of brandy, one bottle of gin, one bottle of whisky and one pint of beer. It seems that the right hon. Lady thinks that the working class in Gloucester either drink their beer out of sherry glasses or drink their brandy out of half-pint pots.
The Minister used to give Christmas messages and surveys to her constituents. She said that things could be worse; unemployment could be high and they could be out of a job. That rings pretty hollow now. The right hon. Lady did not produce her index last Christmas, but The Times did it for her and told us that her Christmas message was devoted to safety and did not mention prices. The report added that the index devised by the right hon. Lady showed that
 Christmas is still getting costlier under the Conservatives.
I believe that the right hon. Lady made a contribution to inflation through the expectations that she created when in opposition. There was not a single


occasion on which she did not attempt to denigrate the efforts of the previous Government to combat inflation or try to bring the Government down on the subject.
When the right hon. Lady got into office, she immediately vetoed a Price Commission investigation into the price of bread. Within 10 months we have this week the 2½p increase on the price of a loaf of bread, which would have made her apoplectic if she had still been in opposition.
The right hon. Lady savaged consumer services by reducing the number of consumer advice bureaux and savaged price surveys. Her crowning achievement is that, with the full blessing of the Prime Minister, she has no responsibility for answering general questions about prices. That was her " personal best " in the inflation athletics race.
Our second charge is that much of the rise in the rate of inflation has been the creation of the Government. The abolition of price controls had an effect which was greater than the mere measurable effect. It created inflationary expectations. The most immediate and dramatic twist was the Chancellor of the Exchequer's first Budget and the rise in VAT, which gave an immediate twist to inflation of about 4 per cent. and created an inflationary fall-out which has not yet settled. The precedent of the 1979 Budget was repeated in the 1980 Budget. It was a reckless and doctrinaire change, coming only weeks after the Chancellor had denied that there would be a doubling in the rate of VAT. He did not call the Labour Party liars, but he came close to it.
The Paymaster-General—the Minister of Information—had no such inhibitions on our accusation that prescription charges would go up. He said in a Tory Party handout that a Labour Party leaflet had said:
 The Tories have planned... increasing prescription charges by 300 per cent.
The right hon. Gentleman said that that was " a direct lie ". I suppose that it was, in a sense, because those charges have gone up by 500 per cent.
Although I cannot call the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Paymaster-General liars, I can use Peter Shaffer's words and say that what they told the electorate was " the truth in masquerade."
Those were the contributions from the shift in taxation in the Budgets. Many of the increases to which the Government have contributed come from their fascination with, and fanatical attachment to, monetary policy. The rise in the minimum lending rate to 17 per cent. has placed a substantial burden on every consumer of credit and on virtually every owner-occupier in this country. The gross extra cost of repaying a mortgage of £15,000 is £36·75 a month. That was a substantial increase in inflation which was due to monetary policy and interest rates.
The Government did not hit only the owner-occupiers. Monetary policies have extended to the cutting of housing subsidies. As a result of Government decree, virtually every council tenant will pay an extra £2 a week in rent—£100 a year—and that has not yet come into the cost of living index.
The cuts in rate support grant will increase the rates for every family by £40 per household, according to the borough treasurers. Of course, the old Tory doctrine is " the poorer you are, the harder we will hit you " and in inner city areas the rate rises will be even higher. That has also not yet got into the cost of living index.
The gas price rise is another extension of monetary policy. The Secretary of State for Energy said that the increased profits that would result from a 30 per cent. increase, in real terms, in the price of gas
 will make an important contribution to the Government's central economic objective of holding down the public sector borrowing requirement."—[Official Report, 29 January 1980, Vol. 977, c. 1048.]
The gas and electricity price increases are as much a measure of monetary policy as a measure of conservation. They will also contribute to the inflation rate.
The Government are hooked on monetary policy. They may as well be hooked on LSD. They are under the hallucination that by putting prices up one somehow brings down the rate of inflation.
The next charge I make is that there is no immediate sign of abatement. Many of the Budget increases have not yet got into the index—the gas price increase, the increase in rents, and the increase in other charges. Given the Government's monetary policy and the lack of matching


of the demand for home loans and the supply of money into the building societies, who is to say that the mortgage interest rate will not rise again? These things have yet to find their way into the inflation figures.
The Chancellor has forecast that in some areas wages will rise by 25 per cent. That is normally followed by a rise in the inflation rate of the same figure, particularly in circumstances in which he forecasts an overall drop in output of 2½ per cent., and, if one excludes the production of North Sea oil, a drop in manufacturing output of about 6 per cent. That means, in turn, much less chance for increases in productivity when the market is shrinking, and that means, in turn, much higher unit costs. That is yet to flow through as a result of the policies being pursued by the present Government.
I come to the last and most serious charge. It is that the Government have no workable or acceptable strategy for dealing with inflation. We had not one believable word from the right hon. Lady in her speech this afternoon. We have only the policy as it was described in the Yorkshire Post on Monday of this week by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that
 we have to reduce inflation and to create the conditions in which economic growth can be sustained ".
That I agree with 100 per cent. He went on to say:
 The attack on inflation, which is our main priority, is being pursued through firm control of the money supply.
That appears to be the only policy. I do not say that it is credible or acceptable, but it is the only policy according to the Chancellor.
The Guardian of Monday tells a different story. According to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, there is no mechanistic link between changes in money supply and the rate of inflation. After the " three years' austerity " speech, I suppose that the Chief Secretary has become the St. Paul of the Conservative Party. When I read those words in The Guardian on Monday, I wondered whether he had seen the blinding light on the road back from Chicago. If that is so, and if we follow biblical precedent, he will soon be let down from the walls of the Treasury in a redundant

shopping basket provided by the right hon. Lady.
However, returning to the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and even if we were to accept his view that monetary policy can bring down the rate of inflation, I say that the casualties and the damage that would be done as a result of trying to get inflation down in that way are not worth the paying. It is the philosophy of trench warfare, in which one is prepared to sacrifice thousands of people—people sacrificed to unemployment, to homelessness, and to cuts in their services—without winning an inch of ground. On the most favourable construction, that is the best that we can say of the Chancellor's policy.
The Conservative Party has accused my right hon. Friend the former Chancellor of the Exchequer of following a monetarist policy, but I think that the difference is this—and one can illustrate it by a drug called Warfarin. The drug that (he Conservatives have is class Warfarin, not just Warfarin. Used in small quantities, Warfarin can cure or assist in alleviating diseases of circulation. Used in large quantities, it is a well-known form of rat poison. Monetary policy, since that is the only thing upon which the Conservatives rely, and in the quantities in which they rely upon it, is a kind of social rat poison being injected into this country. The casualties that we shall suffer as a result of the use of that policy are too high to bear.
My concern is that I believe that the Conservative Party has sown the seeds already of its own destruction. That does not worry me too much. What worries me is that the Conservatives have also sown the seeds of the destruction of this country, in terms of not only high inflation but industrial dereliction and the suffering of working people. It is for that reason that I urge the House to accept the motion.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr Norman Tebbit): The first question that one must ask this evening is just how serious the Opposition are in tabling this motion. They are not very serious, in my judgment. All through the afternoon we had a lot of talk about double digit inflation. Until the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) rose to speak, I do not think


that the Opposition mustered a double digit roll of Members on their Benches. At one time there were three, then five, and then there was the big deal when the number went up to six, I think—[Interruption.] My hon. Friends did not table the motion. They are not criticising the Government in this matter.

Mr. Allen McKay: Mr. Allen McKay(Penistone)rose——

Mr. Tebbit: No. The hon. Gentleman did not bother to come in earlier. He was one of the missing digits.

Mr. Dan Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In fairness to the truth, perhaps I may say that it may well be that our Benches were comparatively empty—but they were full in another part of the House of Commons. No man can be in two places at once.

Mr. Tebbit: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has done something from the Opposition Benches in the cause of truth this afternoon, because no one else did.
The Opposition even chose a Thursday afternoon for this debate knowing that they would be able to escape half an hour of it because of business questions, and hoping that there would be a ministerial statement to enable them to avoid another half hour's embarrassment, so that they would not have to keep up a show of synthetic indignation for more than two and a half hours. As if that were not enough to show their lack of interest in the matter, they put up as their spokesman a pair of the nicest, most amiable and most good-natured chaps to speak for them, the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) and the hon. Member for Norwood. Amidst all the thugs that the Opposition could have chosen, they chose two really nice, pleasant, decent chaps to make attacks on her Majesty's Government.
I know that the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North tries to be indignant. But the most that he could manage was to read extracts from bygone copies of The Daily Telegraph. That was the whole cutting edge of his attack on the Government.
Of course, the right hon. Gentleman could not bring himself to speak of those dastardly events between 1974 and 1979, but I had a feeling that he could remember

them and that that was what was inhibiting him from making any attack on the present Government over price increases. Yes—he takes some pride now in being a member of a former Government in which he voted, as has been said, for a 108 per cent. increase in school meal prices. After all, it was below the level of inflation generally. Why should he not take some pride in that? Prices in general rose by 110 per cent.
A lot more sense began to emerge when the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) rose to speak. He rightly pointed out that if annual wage increases, without balancing production increases, are met by the creation of more money, that can only create inflation; and if not, unemployment is the result. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman strikes a most responsive chord on the Conservative Benches when he says that. From time to time, he might have struck a responsive chord on the Opposition Benches. I remember the previous Prime Minister, speaking on the BBC programme " The World this Weekend ", two years ago, saying
 30 per cent. wage increases—roughly 30 per cent. price increases. Five per cent. wage increases—roughly 5 per cent. price increases. Ten per cent. wage increases—roughly 10 per cent. price increases.
That was the Labour Government's view. But have the present Opposition done anything in the last 10 or 12 months—[HON. MEMBERS: " You are the Government."]—to persuade their friends in the TUC that that is as true under a Conservative Government as it was under a Labour Government? What assistance did they give us in helping to reach an honourable settlement in the steel dispute? Not a scrap.
My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) was right to say that the Labour Party has two economic policies. He was accurate in saying that neither has any chance of success. They have been tried often enough. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) spoke undeniable and undiluted common sense.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) talked about public concern about petrol prices. How can


that be when people will drive past a garage selling petrol at £1.30 and pull into the one just 100 yards up the road and pay £1·40? She expressed her usual child-like diatribe against profits. From exactly where does she expect the money will come to invest thousands of millions of pounds in new North Sea oilfields to keep up the supply of oil, unless it comes from oil companies' profits?

Miss Boothroyd: Will the Minister tell the consumers why his Government allow companies such BP to make a profit in one year of £1½ billion after tax? The other companies are following suit. I accept the need for investment, but the consumer should have some of the benefit from the profits.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Lady has little idea of what it costs to develop a North Sea oilfield if she believes that such a profit is excessive. It is infantile to express pride in what is being done in the North Sea and to attack oil companies' profits. Does the hon. Lady want to end investment in the North Sea?
She has no more understanding than the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans). His case was that inflation was going down when the last Government left office—but it was going up. I do not need to waste much time on him. He gave a heart-rending account of poverty striking the honest citizens of Aberdare who find that VAT on colour televisions and motor cars is more than they can bear. If that is the extent of poverty in Aberdare I wish it extended to other parts of the country. There are real problems in many places. It is fanciful to base a case on the price of colour televisions and motor cars.

Mr. David Ennals: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tebbit: I cannot be bothered to deal with the little ones. Even the boast by the hon. Member for Aberdare that his Government were holding wages down was empty. I am not sure that that was the boast that he made on the election platform a year ago. One can imagine him going round Aberdare at that time. He would say to the electors " This Government, whom I have supported throughout five difficult years, have a great claim to your support—they held down your wages and will continue to do so." That

was not the speech that he made, nor was it that of the former Prime Minister in 1974 in Aberdare when he was stirring up the miners. He said that to talk of wages having an effect on inflation was bunk. That contrasted with what he learned afterwards at the feet of the IMF.

Mr. loan Evans: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Tebbit: I do not think that I should. The hon. Gentleman had his chance and he did not make much of it. I do not see why I should give him another chance to waste the time of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser)——

Mr. loan Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is it not common practice, when an hon. Member from the Front Bench distorts what another hon. Member has said, for the Front Bench spokesman to give way to allow a correction to be made?

Mr. Speaker: That is up to the Minister.

Mr. Tebbit: I should have been glad to give way to the hon. Gentleman had we had more time, but 15 minutes is not long in which to deal with a whole debate.
Have the Opposition offered any credible alternatives? They had some liking for rat poison in small doses in the last Labour Cabinet. Perhaps that is why their majority gradually dwindled away. The hon. Member for Norwood gave his usual performance. He was so like Iain Macleod's sundial in the old days. He used to count only the sunny hours. Now he can see nothing but gloom in the world, but he cannot offer us a credible alternative. Did he commit his party to cutting VAT? If he did, did he say how that revenue would be replaced? Would it be from extra income tax, or would a Labour Government just print and borrow again? Do Labour Members still believe that wage rises generate inflation? If so, they are not doing much to control them. Do they still support restraint in wage demands? Some of them rail against high food prices from protected agriculture industries. They are usually the Members who want to shut out imports of cheap clothing and other consumer


goods. They want it both ways. They even wanted to shut out such cheap energy as coal. Would they cut gas prices? From where would they raise the cash to replace the money that is flowing into the Treasury from the increase in gas prices?
To my astonishment the hon. Member for Norwood mentioned the impact of rates on the cost of living. That was pretty bold. I shall invite him to come to my constituency. Let him talk to the people of Chingford who live in the London borough of Waltham Forest under a Labour council and face a rate increase of 43 per cent. this year. I shall also take him to see the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) who live next door in the borough of Redbridge which has a Tory council and a rate increase of 20 per cent. Who is to be blamed for the high cost of living caused by rate increases? The hon. Member knows that such figures are true across the country. Town halls run by the Labour party—padded, fat and obese—have made no attempt to control expenditure. They are shoving rising prices on to the backs of the unfortunate ratepayers. That is the perfect example of what we can expect if we experience another Labour Government.
The cause of today's inflation is the vast excess of money which is beyond that justified by the level of production.

That excess of money springs entirely from the spillage of money into the economy in 1979 as part of the last Government's election campaign. How I wish that the former Prime Minister had made up his mind to call an election earlier than he did. That would have resulted in a much easier time for us because he would not have poured so much excess money into the country in the campaign.

My right hon. Friend the Minister spoke about post-dated cheques. The Labour Government did not leave us only post-dated cheques; they left us Professor Clegg to fill in the figures. It is the most juvenile distortion of reality to suggest that it is practicable to reduce the rate of creation of money, to soak up the excess money in the economy, to take action about the padded spending programmes in Whitehall and the town halls overnight.

It is plain dishonest to attack expenditure without advocating higher taxes or borrowing with the accompanying high interest rates. Changing the direction of an economy is a slow process. We have changed the direction of the economy and we shall reap the benefits in the years to come. The motion should be rejected, not only with contempt but with total contempt because of the half-hearted way in which it was moved.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 302.

Division No. 266]
AYES
[7 pm


Abse, Leo
Cartwright, John
Dubs, Alfred


Adams, Allen
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)


Allaun, Frank
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Dunnett, Jack


Anderson, Donald
Cohen, Stanley
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Coleman, Donald
Eadie, Alex


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Eastham, Ken


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Conlan, Bernard
English, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Cook, Robin F.
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Cowans, Harry
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Evans, John (Newton)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Crowther, J. S.
Ewing, Harry


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cryer, Bob
Faulds, Andrew


Bidwell, Sydney
Cunliffe, Lawrence
Field, Frank


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Fitt, Gerard


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Flannery, Martin


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Dalyell, Tarn
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bradley, Tom
Davidson, Arthur
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelll)
Ford, Ben


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Forrester, John


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Foster, Derek


Brown, Ron(Edinburgh, Leith)
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)


Buchan, Norman
Deakins, Eric
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Dempsey, James
George, Bruce


Campbell, Ian
Dixon, Donald
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dobson, Frank
Ginsburg, David


Canavan, Dennis
Dormand, Jack
Golding, John


Cant, R. B.
Douglas, Dick
Gourlay, Harry


Carmichael, Nell
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Graham, Ted




Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marks, Kenneth
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L.)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)
Shore. Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Short. Mrs Renée


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
Silkin, Rt Hon S.C. (Dulwich)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Silverman, Julius


Haynes, Frank
Maxton, John
Skinner, Dennis


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Meacher, Michael
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Heffer, Eric S.
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Snape, Peter


Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Mikardo, lan
Soley, Clive


Home Robertson, John
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Spearing, Nigel


Homewood, William
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, lichen)
Spriggs, Leslie


Hooley, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Stallard, A. W.


Horam, John
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Morton, George
Stoddart, David


Huckfield, Les
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Stott, Roger


Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed
Newens, Stanley
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Straw, Jack


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Ogden, Eric
Summerskill. Hon Dr Shirley


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
O'Halloran, Michael
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Janner, Hon Greville
O'Neill, Martin
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


John, Brynmor
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Palmer, Arthur
Tilley, John


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Park, George
Torney, Tom


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Parker, John
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Kerr, Russell
Parry, Robert
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Kilfedder, James A.
Pendry, Tom
Walker. Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Watkins, David


Lamborn, Harry
Prescott, John
Wellbeloved, James


Lamond, James
Race, Reg
Welsh, Michael


Leighton, Ronald
Radice, Giles
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Richardson, Jo
Whitehead, Phillip


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Whitlock, William


Litherland, Robert
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Wigley, Dafydd


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Robertson, George
Wilson. William (Coventry SE)


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J Dickson
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)
Winnick, David


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Woodall, Alec


McElhone, Frank
Rooker, J. W.
Woolmer, Kenneth


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Roper, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


McKelvey, William
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Wright, Sheila


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Young, David (Bolton East)


Maclennan, Robert
Rowlands, Ted



McNally, Thomas
Ryman, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McNamara, Kevin
Sandelson, Neville
Mr. Hugh McCartney and


McWilliam, John
Sever, John
Mr. James Tinn


Magee, Bryan
Sheerman, Barry



NOES


Adley, Robert
Brooke, Hon Peter
Critchley, Julian


Aitken, Jonathan
Brotherton, Michael
Crouch, David


Alexander, Richard
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Browne, John (Winchester)
Dorrell, Stephen


Ancram, Michael
Bruce-Gardyne, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arnold, Tom
Bryan, Sir Paul
Dover, Denshore


Aspinwall, Jack
Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Buck, Antony
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Budgen, Nick
Durant, Tony


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Bulmer, Esmond
Dykes, Hugh


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Burden, F. A.
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Butcher, John
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)


Bell, Sir Ronald
Butler, Hon Adam
Eggar, Timothy


Bendall, Vivian
Cadbury, Jocelyn
Elliott, Sir William


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Eyre, Reginald


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Fairgrieve, Russell


Biggs-Davison, John
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Blackburn, John
Channon, Paul
Fell, Anthony


Blaker, Peter
Chapman, Sydney
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Body, Richard
Churchill, W. S.
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bowden, Andrew
Clegg, Sir Walter
Fookes, Miss Janet


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Cockeram, Eric
Forman, Nigel


Bradford, Rev R.
Colvin, Michael
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Braine, Sir Bernard
Cope, John
Fox, Marcus


Bright, Graham
Cormack, Patrick
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)


Brinton, Tim
Corrie, John
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Brittan, Leon
Costain, A. P.
Fry, Peter


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Cranborne, Viscount
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.







Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McQuarrie, Albert
Rossi, Hugh


Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Madel, David
Rost, Peter


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Major, John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Marland, Paul
Scott, Nicholas


Glyn, Dr Alan
Marlow, Tony
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Goodhart, Philip
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Goodhew, Victor
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Goodlad, Alastair
Mates, Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br-hills


Gorst, John
Mather, Carol
Shersby, Michael


Gow, lan
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Silvester, Fred


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mawby, Ray
Sims, Roger


Gray, Hamish
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Skeet, T. H. H.


Greenway, Harry
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Speed, Keith


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Mayhew, Patrick
Speller Tony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mellor, David
Spence, John


Grist, Ian
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Grylls, Michael
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Mills, lain (Meriden)
Sproat, lain


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Squire, Robin


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Miscampbell, Norman
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stanley, John


Hannam, John
Moate, Roger
Steen, Anthony


Haselhurst, Alan
Molyneaux, James
Stevens, Martin


Hastings, Stephen
Monro, Hector
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Hawksley, Warren
Montgomery, Fergus
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Hayhoe, Barney
Moore, John
Stokes, John


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Morgan, Geraint
Stradling Thomas, J.


Heddle, John
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Tapsell, Peter


Henderson, Barry
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Hicks, Robert
Murphy, Christopher
Tebbit, Norman


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Myles, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Needham, Richard
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Nelson, Anthony
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Hooson, Tom
Neubert, Michael
Thompson, Donald


Hordern, Peter
Newton, Tony
Thorne, Nell (Ilford South)


Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Normanton, Tom
Thornton, Malcolm


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Nott, Rt Hon John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Trippier, David


Hurd, Hon Douglas

Trotter, Neville


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Parkinson, Cecil
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Parris, Matthew
Viggers, Peter


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Waddington, David


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Patten, John (Oxford)
Wakeham, John


Kimball, Marcus
Pattie, Geoffrey
Waldegrave, Hon William


King, Rt Hon Tom
Pawsey, James
Walker, Rt Hon. Peter (Worcester)


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Percival, Sir Ian
Walker, Bill (Perth S E Perthshire)


Lamont, Norman
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Lang, Ian
Pink, R. Bonner
Waller, Gary


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pollock, Alexander
Walters, Dennis


Latham, Michael
Porter, George
Ward, John


Lawrence, Ivan
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Warren, Kenneth


Lawson, Nigel
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Watson, John


Lee, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Prior, Rt Hon James
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Proctor, K. Harvey
Wheeler, John


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Raison, Timothy
Whitney, Raymond


Loveridge, John
Rathbone, Tim
Wickenden, Keith


Luce, Richard
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Lyell, Nicholas
Renton, Tim
Winterton, Nicholas


McCrindle, Robert
Rhodes James, Robert
Wolfson. Mark


McCusker, H.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Macfarlane, Neil
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Younger, Rt Hon George


MacGregor, John
Ridsdale, Julian



MacKay, John (Argyll)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Mr. Anthony Barry.


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Question accordingly negatived.

DARTMOOR COMMONS BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Ray Mawby: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The common land of Dartmoor, about 96,000 acres, comprising 41 per cent. of the national park, has about 55 owners and is subject to the rights of 1,500 commoners. At least 400 of the commoners are farmers who use the commons for their livestock. The estimated value of livestook on the commons during the year is about £7 million. Although most of the commons are in one continuous block, there are a number of small commons and groups of commons that are separated from it.
Until some time late in the nineteenth century, each common was managed for stocking, burning and the overseeing ot the use of rights generally by manor courts, and on duchy lands by steward moormen and agisters. These systems have long since broken down. In only two places are manor courts still held.
The Dartmoor commoners' association, a voluntary organisation representing about 30 local organisations, was formed in 1952. It has no legal powers to regulate farming or to carry out minor improvements to the land. Lack of any disciplinary system has three connected major effects. First, unscrupulous commoners, encouraged by a headage subsidy, put on the commons more animals than their entitlement. That, coupled with inadequate stockmanship, leads to local over-grazing, poor performance and consequently high disease and death rates.
Secondly, there is the withdrawal of stock by those commoners who do not wish their stock to be in contact with other less healthy stock, or who are statutorily prevented from doing so by health regulations if the better farmers withdraw. This removes one of the main influences which would maintain higher levels of livestock health and management of the pastures.
Thirdly, there is the inability to deal properly with disease outbreak, evidenced by the current problem connected with

sheep scab, which is the most important, and recent and continuing bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis eradication attempts. These three mischiefs combine to reduce the productivity of the common and its contribution to the stock-rearing industry. In the end it leads to a deterioration of the quality of vegetation and thus in the wild life and natural beauty of the national park.
The common land is not legally available to the public. Nevertheless, it is used by up to 80 million visitors a year, most of whom are technically trespassers. That results in many problems. National park rangers and policemen have no power to act on common land against such problems. There is room for almost all recreational activities, but some need regulating in the best interests of the peaceful enjoyment both of the particular activity and of other visitors and common rights.
The recent boom in organised and commercial horse riding has led to concentrated damage to the vegetation and the surface itself in many localities. Motorised camping can lead to visual and actual pollution. Sports involving mechanical aids and instruments such as hang-gliding, model aeroplanes, roller skiing, crossbow shooting and ballooning, can all have an effect on other activities and animals. Most of these activities on Dartmoor do not demand prohibition. However, the ability to manage them in the interests of the whole of society is now necessary. Management by agreement will be perfectly possible in most instances if the power to regulate is also available.
The Bill was presented to Parliament in November 1978 after two years of detailed consultation with 55 owners, the commoners, local people including 46 parish councillors, local and national organisations concerned with Dartmoor and Government Departments and agencies. Its terms represent a partnership between the farmers and the park authority. It is a partnership in which each partner respects the other's point of view.
The park authority will have seats on the commoners' council. The commoners, in assenting to public right of access, expect the park authority to control public behaviour through byelaws.


The format of the Bill recognises the separate concerns of each party.

Clauses 3 to 8 deal with commoners powers. Clauses 9 to 13 cover public access. Naturally, the amenity organisations are apprehensive that commoners could alter the appearance of the commons. They say that agricultural operations might adversely affect the landscape. They therefore look for further representation on the commoners' council and further restrictions on the powers to improve land.

Clause 3 provides that the Dartmoor commoners' council should consist of 16 elected commoners, two park authority members, one Duchy of Cornwall representative, two landowners and two small graziers. The Bill has been carefully designed so that livestock, husbandry and the management of vegetation are properly separated from the management of recreation. Nevertheless, as the national park authority has a duty connected with the conservation of vegetation, it has two seats on the council. Thus two members of the council represent, in what is primarily an agricultural debating chamber, the interests of natural beauty and recreation. The national park authority will be aware at the outset of all proposals affecting the management of those social assets.

Under clause 4, the council may carry out a limited range of improvements to the land. Ploughing is excluded. The powers can be delegated to local associations and it is assumed that that will be the normal method of using them. The area that can be improved is limited to 25 acres in any parish in any year. The owner's consent must be obtained. If fencing or other structures are required, the consent of the Secretary of State must be obtained. The powers are of a minor character, already hedged about with numerous practical restraints.

The park authority does not wish to see changes to the landscape that might result in the appearance of lowland pasture. Improvement of any type needs investment. Indeed, it demands it. Unless improved ground is fenced, it will quickly attract animals from a wide area. The Dartmoor commoners' association has made clear that it does not envisage the wholesale improvement of large areas of common land. Indeed, only small areas are available for improvement.

Of the common land, 30 per cent. is blanket bog above 1,200 feet. It is unimprovable for economic reasons alone. The density of surface boulders and the steepness of the slope precludes work with farm machinery. The commoners' economy precludes the use of aircraft and heavy machinery and thus manual operations are the only likely ones. Any operations will probably be on a smaller scale, if at all.

The commoners wish to be able to deal with deteriorating vegetation from a grazing point of view, particularly with the encroachment of bracken and gorse on potentially good grazing land and with small areas of the type of bog in which animals are frequently trapped. Hill farming is a stock-rearing exercise. It produces stock which is the basis of the livestock industry elsewhere. It is therefore important to recognise that the conversion of hill land to a type of low-land grassland defeats the object of the exercise.

The Royal Commission on common land, which reported in 1958, considered that commoners might have powers to plough the land. It considered that they might be empowered to fence it without obtaining the Secretary of State's consent and without an overriding veto by the owner. Recognising that that would go too far in the national park, the park authority has not adopted those proposals in the Bill.

Clause 5 would empower the commoners' council to make regulations promoting good animal husbandry on the commons. Many people have welcomed that proposal. Some of the petitioners, notably the Dartmoor livestock association, argue that the Bill should go further and that it should ban the out-wintering of animals on the common. However, it is a long-established right and it is essential to the hill farming economy. The breeds that are outwintered are out-wintered in all other hill farming areas in Britain. It is doubtful whether proposals to change the Bill could now be made, since to do so would be to interfere with a legal right. It would amount to an extension of the Bill, and that is precluded by Standing Orders.

As drafted, the Bill would empower the commoners' council to clear animals from the moor for specific purposes.

Mr. Denis Howell: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. He told us that neither the House nor a Committee could change the Bill because it would affect other legal obligations. Surely that cannot be so. I have never heard of it. I should have thought that the House could do what it liked with legislation.

Mr. Mawby: The right hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. However, we have had these arguments before. We have had arguments about Hybrid Bills and arguments about Bills which may adversely affect a small group of people. It was therefore decided that points should be put before a Select Committee, not a Standing Committee. Other hon. Members know more about Standing Orders.
As I said, the breeds that normally run on Dartmoor are the same as those that are normally out-wintered in other hill areas. The Bill empowers the commoners' council to clear the moor of animals for specific reasons.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Is my hon. Friend saying that the Bill is so drafted that it cannot be changed by a Select Committee? That would be of concern to all hon. Members. Perhaps he is saying that many rights are enshrined in legislation and in the tradition of hill farmers and that the Bill cannot change them without further Acts of Parliament. This is an important point and should be cleared up before my hon. Friend discusses the breeds of sheep that are out-wintered on Dartmoor.

Mr. Mawby: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. The Bill has been opposed. If it receives a Second Reading, it will come before a Select Committee. Different rules will therefore apply because all those who object to the Bill can be heard in person, or through counsel. No doubt one could argue about whether a small group of people would be adversely affected without the right of being heard. That is for the Select Committee to decide. To change the Bill at this point before it goes to the Select Committee would be outside the remit of the Bill, as I understand it, and would be precluded by the Standing Orders of the House.

Mr. Harry Greenway: There is a motion down on the Order Paper in my name and those of other hon. Members to make a procedural alteration. Is my hon. Friend saying that that cannot be done?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In order to clear up that issue, I make it plain that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment or the instruction for debate. This is purely a Second Reading debate.

Mr. Mawby: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that it is a little late in the day to put down an instruction to the Committee; it went on the Order Paper only this morning. That does not give me or the promoters of the Bill, who have spent three years in negotiations with everyone concerned, much of a chance if we are suddenly faced with an instruction to the Committee on the day of the" Second Reading debate.

Mr. Greenway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I understand that it is customary for the promoters of a Private Bill to circulate a Second Reading statement to all hon. Members, and ii" they decide to do so that statement would normally appear in the Vote Office, where it could be seen by all those who have involved themselves in the Bill. I understand that Dartmoor common statement has been circulated to certain hon. Members, but I and others have not received it, and it was not in the Vote Office late this afternoon. This is a very doubtful practice. Would you give us some guid ance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in view of the fact that rulings are usually made by the Chair and not by my Friend the hon Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby)?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I believe that most hon. Members have received the statement on this Bill. I received mine in the post yesterday.

Mr. Greenway: But I have not had one and a number of other hon. Members have not received one either. I could not get a copy of it until one of my hon. Friends lent me his copy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for me. Copies of the statement are certainly available—I have one myself.

Mr. Mawby: I can only repeat that in normal circumstances every hon. Member would have a copy. Normally every hon. Member is sent one by the parliamentary agents for the promoters. There must have been some slip up somewhere if certain hon. Members did not receive their copies.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: The point that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) raised is for the promoters of the Hill. I have received a statement, but it is a serious matter if a significant number of hon. Members have not. I think that it would be in the interests of a good passage for this Bill if the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) considered it wise to seek the guidance of the Chair on whether he could withdraw the Bill at this stage or seek a possible postponement of the debate. If some hon. Members have not had a copy of the statement, it puts the House at a disadvantage. Many of us are anxious that a decision on the Bill should be reached in a sensible way after debate. I appeal to the hon. Member, even at this late stage, to withdraw it or seek some guidance on his position.

Mr. Mawby: I am grateful to the hon. Member. This is obviously an oversight because, as far as I know, a copy of the statement is usually sent to every hon. Member. If some copies did not arrive, the reasons must be outside the control of the promoters of the Bill, and certainly outside my control.
I do not think, particularly in view of the queue of Private Bills which have to be slotted in, that I would be doing a service to the House if I took the course that the hon. Member suggests. On behalf of the promoters, I apologise to any hon. Member who has not received the document from the parliamentary agents.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am supposed to be looking after the Bill for the Opposition, and I have not received a copy of the statement. I accept the hon. Member's apology, but I should hope that the promoters would post such documents rather earlier than the day before the Second Reading debate. I have no doubt that my copy was addressed to " The Rt. Hon. D. Howell " and that it has gone to the Secretary of State for Energy, who gets all my invitations, while I get all his bills.
On a more substantial point, we cannot take the instruction to the Committee—and we accept the Chair's ruling on that. It is therefore of cardinal importance for us to receive some undertakings from the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) tonight. We are now put in the position of voting against the Bill on Second Reading unless some of our substantial points can be met. I am afraid that I cannot accept the position in which I am told that we will have to give the Bill a Second Reading, and leave it to the Standing Committee to decide what to do with the petitioners. Of course, the petitioners are entitled to be heard, but so are hon. Members, and we have to decide whether the Bill should get a Second Reading. If I am not to vote against the Bill tonight, I plead with the hon. Member for Totnes to give an undertaking about consultations with hon. Members and outside bodies. Perhaps he can tell us the likely reaction of the promoters in Standing Committee when the objections are considered. If we cannot have proper undertakings, the Bill should not proceed.

Mr. Mawby: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. For a start, he is using the wrong term because this Bill would go to a Select Committee, not a Standing Committee. A Select Committee is made up of a group of hon. Members who sit in a quasi-judicial capacity, prepared and able to listen to the points made by the objectors to the Bill, either in their own right or as represented by counsel. Therefore, those who will be affected by this Bill have many more rights than anyone who is affected by normal Government Bills. They have the right to be heard before a Select Committee. Therefore, I believe that on this item we are splitting hairs. We do not need a lecture on the reasons why Standing Orders are so tabled.
There is one good reason for the Select Committee procedure. No group of individuals should be damaged without the right of being heard. That could happen with a Govenment Bill coming before a Standing Committee where no member of the public has a right to be heard. This matter will come before a Select Committee where members of the public and their representatives, who may be QCs—can represent that small group of people to make sure that their interests are properly protected even


though the rest of the community might prefer that those interests were extinguished.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, and I entirely agree with him. I have not sat in this House for 25 years without understanding the workings of Select Committees. Indeed, I have served on them and I would not for a moment wish to deprive anyone of the right to have their case presented.
That, however, has nothing to do with the rights of this House. This Bill involves extremely important principles concerning the role of national parks, how they should be controlled, rights of access to them and, most important of all, the relationship between national parks in a national setting and local interests. That is a matter of supreme importance which cannot be dealt with by objectors. It must be dealt with as a matter of principle on the Floor of this House. That is what this debate is about, and that is why if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall address the House on the issues.
I want guarantees about how this national park committee and Devon county council see the role of this national park in relation to the whole country as well as in relation to the local community. Both have an important part to play, and, unless we get proper guarantees, I shall be advising the House to vote against the Bill. We must have guarantees. That is why we have a Second Reading procedure. I agree entirely about the role of the Select Committee, and the hon. Gentleman described the procedure with scrupulous fairness. The object of the Second Reading procedure is to allow us to raise important policy matters about which the House will wish to receive assurances.

Mr. Mawby: Let us clear up this matter, because it is generating unnecessary heat. The question is whether we out-winter stock on the moor or whether we require everyone to clear the moor of animals throughout the winter. I have said that most of the stock on Dartmoor is similar to that which is out-wintered on every other hill farming area in the country. I know of certain breeds of sheep which could not live on the lower levels. Such breeds have stomach problems. I have also said that the Bill as drafted would empower the commoners'

council to clear the moor of animals for specific reasons.
Must we continue to split hairs on that point? I do not think that we should. This a question of the out-wintering of animals. I said earlier that, because of the absence of any form of discipline, unscrupulous commoners can run more stock than the vegetation of the moor can feed. Is not that important? Would the right hon. Gentleman wish there to be more animals on the moor than its vegetation can support? That would involve a certain amount of cruelty.

Mr. Steen: I do not wish to labour this point unduly, but I want to get the issue absolutely clear. I understand my hon. Friend to be saying that the commoners' council will have powers under the Bill to clear the common land of animals so that we get rid of rotting carcases which one sees every spring littering Dartmoor. What my hon. Friend is saying is that that power to clear the land is something that we cannot change either here or in Select Committee.
Secondly, the people who are abusing the commons of Dartmoor include the very people who will serve on the commoners' council. If that is the case, this is a very funny Bill indeed.

Mr. Mawby: Let us get back to square one. A commoners' council will have among its members a number of commoners elected by their fellows for the various manors in which they reside. I cannot believe that commoners would elect to the commoners' council someone who might be guilty of this kind of malpractice. I cannot see such people being elected to the council.
I believe that those who are elected by their fellow commoners are respected farmers who practise good husbandry. I would see the commoners' representatives on that council as people who maintain high husbandry standards which reduce the incidence of cruelty because the moor would no longer be over-stocked. Those councillors would also use their powers to clear the moor for specific reasons in the interests of good animal husbandry.

Clause 6 provides for the appointment of grieves. The Dartmoor commoners' association says that these would be unpaid appointments. The appointees would be nominated by the local associations to


observe conditions on the commons and report to the council. Clause 7 provides for a register of commoners which will be required, among other things, for identifying those entitled to vote in elections and those who are required to make contributions to the council under clause 15.

Clause 8 constitutes a small but important amendment to the law to ensure that common rights cannot be separated from the land with which they have always been held. Clause 9 gives the public, for the first time as far as most commons are concerned, a legal right of access on foot to the commons. There may not be great practical significance in this because people already enjoy access.

Mr. Steen: The provision does not matter.

Mr. Mawby: My hon. Friend says it does not matter. It does matter.

Mr. Steen: Why?

Mr. Mawby: It matters if one is technically trespassing on land. In that case, surely it is important that this House, which believes in law and legal rights, should put right something if people are technically committing trespass every time they enter land. It is therefore important that the issue should be put right and regularised.

Mr. Steen: I am grateful for the way in which my hon. Friend is giving way. This is an important point and I am sure that the whole House would like to hear more information on it. For 1,000 years, Dartmoor has been of ready access to anyone in the country who wanted to go on to it. Today people can walk, ride or go anywhere they like on Dartmoor. Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell the House why it is important to be bureaucratic and establish a legal right which has not been needed for 1,000 years. What is the purpose of doing that when nobody has ever been refused access to Dartmoor?

Mr. Mawby: It is obvious that my hon. Friend did not listen to my opening remarks, but I cannot go back to the beginning now. However, I said that until the end of the nineteenth century Dartmoor was looked after and disciplined by manor courts. Those courts

represented the interests of the owners—the lords of the manor—and the commoners. Only two manor courts now meet. My hon. Friend believes that he has a right to do what he likes, but he does it with the permission, even if it is only tacit, of the landowner. That owner has the right to take civil action against him if he believes that he should not be on the land. However, the taking of that civil action is a very involved process indeed.
The Bill seeks to regularise the position so that people have proper legal rights and so that they know that in their enjoyment of the moor they are not interfering with the rights of others who want to enjoy the moor for other reasons, such as those involved in animal husbandry. That is what this is all about.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I think I am right in saying that if someone who is legally a trespasser is involved in an accident with another party, the implications are different depending on whether one or the other is a trespasser or whether he has a right to be there in the first place. The argument that historically people may have been trespassing for a long time does not detract from the important point that to have a right to be there, rather than being there as a trespasser, is of value to a person who may find himself in that circumstance, and, as the moor becomes more crowded, accidents are more likely to arise.

Mr. Mawby: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I did not answer the question that was raised earlier about why it is more important to have these rules now than, say, 100 years ago. One of the main reasons can be appreciated merely by visiting the moor and seeing the large number of people who enjoy its facilities. Obviously, it is in everyone's interests that some sort of regulation should be laid down.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, because the interventions are prolonging his explanation, but is not it a fact that for a long time, by custom and practice, there has been free access to Dartmoor, and that there has been a complete absence of any attempt by any established, ancient, legal body to take action for trespass? Therefore, this is a civil liberties matter, because by custom


and practice there has been free access. Clause 9 is a serious one, because some hon. Members may believe that the Bill confers a right upon people. It does not. Clause 9(1), while putting into a modern statute a right of access to the moor, provides powers for limitations to be imposed on British subjects in exercising a right of access to Dartmoor which they have had almost from time immemorial.

Mr. Mawby: We are again back to splitting hairs. The public have enjoyed access because, technically, they have had the permission of the owner. Because the owner knew that it was so difficult to go through civil proceedings with regard to trespass, his right has gone by default. However, the hon. Gentleman surely realises that large numbers of people doing exactly as they like can interfere with the enjoyment of the moor for other people, as well as interfering with the animals, the herbage and everything associated with a stock-rearing area.
Therefore, we must ask " Who came first, the chicken or the egg? " The commoners came first. Under the old rights which they possess, they have a right to rear their stock and so on. That is the most important issue. The Bill does not say that people should not have access to the moor. It is trying to regulate the access in such a way that people do not enjoy the moor at the expense of others or of people's livelihoods. That is all that we are saying.

Mr. Denis Howell: That may be a simple proposition, but it is the most extraordinary and breathtaking proposition that has been advanced in the House since the war. The hon. Gentleman is saying that the millions of people who visit our most important national park every year are there on sufferance and that agriculture interests, which I agree are important, should predominate over the recreational interests of the entire nation. He is suggesting that access of the entire nation to Dartmoor national park should in some way be regulated.
The House would be failing in its duty if it gave the Bill a Second Reading unless the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the promoters, said how it was proposed to regulate the access of large numbers of people who undoubtedly visit the park and who, I admit, undoubtedly cause problems. That is why the Bill is so

critical. It is the first time in any Bill dealing with a national park that that sort of approach has been presented to the House. To do so for probably the most important national park in the country, certainly the one that attracts more visitors than any other, raises issues f such supreme importance that I am tempted to suggest that a three-hour debate is totally inadequate. Certainly these questions must be answered before we can proceed any further.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting the issues with such clarity, and I should like him to explain what sort of regulation of those millions of visitors is proposed by the council.

Mr. Mawby: I can only ask the right hon. Gentleman to read the Bill——

Mr. Denis Howell: I have it here.

Mr. Mawby: —because that is what the Bill explains. I am seeking to give the House the reason why the Bill is required.

Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend is that because some commoners are exploiting the moor by grazing too many animals and exploiting the natural vegetation, the House should legislate to protect the common lands from the very people who are exploiting them and blaming the public for so doing.

Mr. Mawby: If my hon. friend believes that, he will believe anything. Obviously, he has not listened to a word that I have said.

Mr. Sleen: I have.

Mr. Mawby: I have said that Dartmoor is a place that ought to be open to all If everyone behaves reasonably, there is no reason why everyone should not enjoy the benefits of the moor. All that I am saying is that these days one cannot expect everyone to behave properly, without some sort of control. I wonder whether any of us has parked a caravan by the side of a stream and polluted that stream?—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]— That pollution affects someone lower down the river. That is the sort of thing about which I am talking.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Mr. Wellbelovedrose——

Mr. Mawby: I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is only an example, but it could be spread right across the board.


What about people who do not take their litter home? If that occurred anywhere outside Dartmoor, a policeman could say " Oi, Litter Act ", and run the person concerned into a police station, But lie cannot do that on Dartmoor, because he has no powers to do so.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman used camping as his example. I implore him to withdraw it, because the overwhelming majority of campers who belong to the Camping Club of Great Britain and Ireland, of which I have the honour to be national vice-president, act on a code of practice which ensures that they do not pollute the countryside or cause litter. They are the last people who should be used as the hon. Gentleman's example of bad behaviour.

Mr. Mawby: I know that the hon. Gentleman is making an important point. I was not talking about members of his organisation. The hon. Gentleman has no means of forcing every caravanner to belong to his organisation and so follow its code of conduct. Many people do not belong to any organisation. They leave litter and broken bottles. Anywhere else, those people can be prosecuted under the Litter Act. That cannot happen on Dartmoor. Is it right and proper that one family should be able to despoil the area so that the family next visiting that spot is prejudiced and enjoys itself less than it would if those who had been there before had behaved in a proper and orderly fashion?

Mr. Peter Mills: I can perhaps help my hon. Friend and the House and reply to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). The problem at the moment is that there is no real code of conduct for visitors. The whole idea is to set up such a code. Eight million people now visit the area. Circumstances have changed, and it is necessary to have a code of conduct because of the pressure.

Mr. Denis Howell: I have a lot of sympathy with that point, but this is a national matter, about which the Minister will no doubt advise the House. Those considerations apply to the Lakes, to the Peaks, to Exmoor and to other national parks. We cannot deal with a problem

of that magnitude in a local Bill of this kind.

Mr. Steen: If my hon. Friend is talking about a code of conduct, it does not need to be enshrined in an Act of Parliament. A code of conduct can be established through the national parks and through the Countryside Commission. The reason why litter is not a major problem on Dartmoor has nothing to do with whether an army of litter wardens in peaked caps are on patrol. It is that most people who use Dartmoor enjoy it and appreciate its beauty. Regulations and laws are not needed to be passed in the House that will inevitably result in a bevy of bureaucrats in peaked caps patrolling the moor telling people to pick up this or that and not to park their caravans there, as happens in our London parks. That will surely be the effect of the Bill.

Mr. Mawby: I wish that I had my hon. Friend's sense of optimism. If people were so well behaved generally, we should not need an Act of Parliament to prevent people from leaving litter. There was, nevertheless, pressure for such an Act. There were badly behaved people, although perhaps only a minority, and the House decided that it was essential to have some control over the spreading of litter. Why should people, simply because they drive through Ashburton and on to the moor, suddenly become better behaved than in Exeter? I do not accept that argument. " Men in big boots and peaked caps" is always the description that is given to good people who are seeking to carry out the wishes of the controlling body. In most cases they do so effectively without interfering with people unduly.
I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the length of my speech, but there have been one or two interventions. The camping and caravan clubs asked the Select Committee in another place to delete the park authority's byelaw-making powers to control camping on common land. While the back-pack camper causes no problems, those in caravans, Dormobiles and highly coloured frame tents do. The park authority has actively encouraged the opening of new sites, sometimes in co-operation with camping organisations. There are now sufficient sites in and around the national


park to meet the demand. There is no need for casual camping by the roadside or on open common land. Such camping spoils the enjoyment of the open landscape for others and gives rise to the risk of disease among commoners' animals and to the risk of injury from certain types of litter. The clubs have indicated that their objection might be removed if the byelaw-making power did not apply to enclosed common land. A suitable amendment is now being considered to try to meet that point.

Mr. Wellbeloved: When the hon. Gentleman says that an amendment is being considered, I have to tell him that my understanding is that it has been agreed and that the promoters will put it to the Committee and seek to ensure that it is inserted in the Bill. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that this is the position?

Mr. Mawby: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That is the case. These notes were made before we reached that final agreement.
The British hang-gliding association has taken exception to the inclusion of hang-gliding in the byelaw-making power. In correspondence before the Bill was deposited, the objection was to the word " prohibited ". The park authority has no objection to hang-gliding on suitable sites that are properly controlled, but control implies prohibition on some areas and in some circumstances. The words " or regulated " were added, and the association agreed that they went some way to meet its point. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. MacNair-Wilson) has asked me to state that the objection lodged by the British hang-gliding association has been withdrawn and that the association is most grateful to the Bill's sponsors for their help in reaching a satisfactory agreement.
Clause 11 empowers the park authority to appoint wardens for the commons to assist the public and to enforce byelaws. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) wishes to call them prison officers. What sort of name would he like? If he goes along to an old people's home, he will find a friendly couple who are looking after elderly people in the twilight of their lives and making their

lives happy. Those people are called wardens. No one associates the word " warden " with anything other than friendly people who are doing a job of work looking after people. That is precisely what these wardens will be doing.

Mr. Steen: I am sure that the motoring public would not think of parking wardens in terms of a homely couple looking after motorists in the twilight of their lives. All the experience is that wardens bring with them officialdom and bureaucracy. Why does my hon. Friend take the view that passing an Act of Parliament empowering the council to appoint wardens, who will no doubt go around making themselves known, wearing either arm bands or hats, and uniforms, will not ruin the beauty, the remoteness and the wildness of this most remarkable part of the country? There will be seen, surely, the very invasion of bureaucracy against which this part of the country must be saved at all costs.

Mr. Mawby: I object to my hon. Friend speaking in such a disparaging fashion about servants who happen to be traffic wardens. Can he assure me that he voted against the legislation in this House to appoint traffic wardens?

Mr. Steen: I was not here.

Mr. Mawby: It has been decided by society that we have to regulate parts of our lives. Traffic wardens are doing a job that we, as society, have asked them to do. Some of them may be a little more officious than others but, even if that happens, why should the title of warden be associated with men in big boots and peaked caps who seek to interfere with the comfort of the ordinary individual? They will, as they do now—my hon. Friend has probably met them, because I understand that he visits the moor from time to time—do their best with the limited amount of control that they can assert. My hon. Friend could not possibly say that any of them has done any more to interfere with his pleasure and enjoyment than is done by water bailiffs or others whom we employ.
Clause 12 empowers the park authority to close bridleways and parts of the commons that are damaged by riders so that the ground can be repaired or allowed to recover. Objections to any proposal must be considered, and alternative


routes must be made available. The latter requirement is important. It shows that riding cannot and should not be banned, but should be controlled in the best interests of the sport as well as of the national park.
Clause 13 gives the park authority a legal right to take action to protect the commons generally under the existing law.
I look at the clock. I believe that I have said sufficient to show that the Bill deserves to be given a Second Reading. As I said earlier, the Bill is opposed. There are petitions against the Bill. Matters of detail can be dealt with in detail in a Select Committee if the Bill is given a Second Reading.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I repeat that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment or the instruction.

Mr. Harry Greenway: The hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) has spoken for campers, and no doubt he will deal with the interesting point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby). I followed his argument with great care and noted that he said that campers were thought to bring disease to Dartmoor. I do not want to sound bitter, but I presume that it was thought that they should perhaps camp in Trafalgar Square. Now that the matter between the campers and the promoters of the Bill is settled, may we presume that there is no longer a danger of the former bringing disease to Dartmoor? What has happened to transform the situation on paper? It is a remarkable turnabout.
I have visited Dartmoor and talked to people who are interested in the Bill. I was anxious and disturbed about the attitude of some of the people I met. It was extraordinary. Some were almost antediluvian in attitude. I am worried about it. One lady told me that when she was out for a walk one day she met a couple of boys, miles from anywhere, that they had set up a log and a little pile of stones and that they were pitching the stones at the log. Apparently, it was vandalism of

the grossest kind which had to be stopped in the lady's view. That is an honest quotation of a conversation.
If my hon. Friend and others have been put under pressure to introduce and support the Bill against that kind of background they are in a dreadful situation. I regret that they should have been put into such a situation. I am not saying that they would buy a pig in a poke, but from my discussions, obviously there are pressures of an absurd kind and a total misunderstanding of society.
I am strongly opposed to the Bill which is the possible forerunner of similar action elsewhere. It could do more to divide town and country than almost any pitched battle—and this is not a pitched battle—that one could conceive. Having devoted more than 20 years of strong efforts in trying to bring town and country together for their mutual benefit, I am upset about that.
Many of my Ealing, North constituents love going to Dartmoor for holidays, excursions and other activities, as do people from other parts of the country. I know that Dartmoor people like to come to London to visit Oxford Street, the great sights of Westminster and so on. The Bill resricts or removes the rights of the people of Ealing and elsewhere to visit Dartmoor for certain recreational activities. Would not Dartmoor people be shocked if they found that they were to be restricted from rights that they had for so long rightly enjoyed in Oxford Street, Westminster and, indeed, other parts of the country for as long as people living elsewhere have enjoyed rights on Dartmoor?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Surely that is exactly what people from Dartmoor do find when they come to London. They find every sort of regulation here. My hon. Friend seems to be unaware that London is a source of immense regulation. He is comparing a believed freedom on Dartmoor with an absence of regulation in London and saying that they are equivalent when they are different.

Mr. Greenway: I am not sure about that. I do not know whether the implication is that, because there are regulations in London, Dartmoor people therefore think that, whether they need them or not, they must have them, too. There


must, after all, be some regulations on Dartmoor. Speaking academically, that is not an acceptable argument. Only 8 million people visit the 365 square miles of Dartmoor each year, compared with 2 million people who visit Westminster Abbey alone in one year. One has to be careful how one puts it.
As I said, I visited Dartmoor recently to see things for myself. I was astonished by its size. It is not an area that I know well. It comprises 365 square miles of beautiful country. I have lived on and love Exmoor—I shall always do so for preference—but I concede that Dart-moor is a wonderfully exciting area.
I was filled with grave anxiety about the attitude that certain people took to the fact that 8 million people visit the area each year. Frankly, they will have to be prepared to see many more if we are to cope with the social problems that we face today. Speaking nationally, I cannot accept an argument that such a small number of people are a worry in an area when we consider the large numbers crowded into Bristol and the social unrest that that can bring. Dartmoor must share the country's broad social responsibilities. It must help Bristol to cope with the problem by permitting recreational activity and access to the countryside by people in Bristol and elsewhere. For more than 20 years I taught in inner city schools, including one in King's Cross, and some children in those schools had never seen the countryside until I could get them there.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will my hon. Friend accept from me that it is for that very reason—that we want to cater for these millions of people—that we do not want to spoil parts of Dartmoor for them? That is what the Bill is all about.

Mr. Greenway: I accept the sincerity of my hon. Friend's argument. I know him well. We had dinner together tonight. As I read the Bill, I see it not as my hen. Friend described it but as an attempt to insulate Dartmoor from other areas.

Mr. Steen: Is my hon. Friend aware that The Times did a survey a couple of years ago on the number of people visiting the moor and how they were broken up between motorists and walkers? Is he aware that of every 100 people who visited the moor 70 did not get out of their cars,

20 per cent. got out of their cars and walked 100 yards and only 2 per cent. went right out into the moor? If the promoters were seeking to rid the roads around Dartmoor of these thousands of motorists, we would be behind them, but what the Bill is doing is invading the right of the 2 per cent.

Mr. Greenway: That is a fair point, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making it. Dartmoor cannot be allowed to insulate itself from the rest of the country and the world problems that the country has to face. It has a responsibility, and it is time it faced up to it. I am not advocating swamping; there is no question of that. Growth has been reasonably gradual, and it can be handled.
One of the main enemies of Dartmoor and the countryside is concrete. An area the size of Oxfordshire disappears under concrete every 10 years. Do the people who are promoting the Bill know that?
Mention has been made of the lack of education in urban schools, and some country schools, on how to behave in and respect the countryside and the resultant vandalism and damage by ignorance. Cooperation between town and country is required, and that must come essentially through education. The police could not do it, even if there were a million police on Dartmoor.

Mr. Mawby: My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the increase in concrete, and that is a matter that worries farmers. Does he realise that the existence of the Dartmoor park committee means that anyone who wants to build a residence has to go over two hurdles, the local planning committee and the Dartmoor park committee? There is provision to ensure that Dartmoor does not become a concrete jungle. If permission is given for a residence to be built, it has to be built in proper fashion and must not interfere with anyone else's enjoyment.

Mr. Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I advise Dartmoor to hang on to that provision and to drop the Bill which will not help.
I remind my hon. Friend that there are miles of green belt than which nothing could be more protected, but into which incursions are made all the time. Let us have a sense of co-operation from an area which could make a massive contribution towards solving our social problems.
I have been a member of the council of the British Horse Society since the early 1970s, and both an elected and co-opted member. I was a founder, and have been ever since its foundation chairman, of the London Schools Horse Society. I am deeply and sincerely concerned that we shall remain a properly balanced society, with animals and humans living side by side.
It is fantastic that campers should be able to get to areas where there are animals. I do not want the animals to be interfered with. Dartmoor can say that it is making a major contribution to a balanced society. The horse is crucial in this argument, as it has been throughout history. I care deeply about riding for everyone, especially for the less privileged in our society and children. My record for the past 20 years will bear that out.
I have had great success in achieving curricula riding in 120 schools in inner London for children who are blind, deaf, physically handicapped, mentally handicapped, educationally sub-normal, autistic, maladjusted and delicate, for fit children from comprehensive, grammar, technical, and secondary modern schools and also for parents from adult education institutes.
One has only to see the effect of putting any child, disabled or not, with a horse to be thrilled with the part that the horse plays in the development, self-control and will to learn of that child. Children who are not interested in language get involved in trying to understand language so as better to accept instruction and make the horse or pony perform better.
Clause 9 specifically grants to the public a right of access to the commons on foot for the purpose of open air recreation. As long as a person entering on the commons for that purpose does no damage, that person shall not be treated as a trespasser or incur any liability. A statutory right of pedestrian access to the commons is created by the Bill, whereas before there was merely a de facto right. But right there was, and there has been no prosecution of people on foot. The walking public used the commons for open air recreation without hindrance, but there is nothing in law to say that they shall do so. There has been a de

facto right of access to the Dartmoor commons on horseback for as long as there has been a right of pedestrian access. The preamble to the Bill declares:
 And whereas it is expedient that the public be afforded a right of access to the said commons as by this Act provided ".
No clause grants right of access on horseback, and clause 9 excludes riders from the right of access it grants.
Clause 12, which is largely the product of representations made by the British Horse Society to the Committee which dealt with the Bill in the House of Lords, acknowledges that riders will be present on the common, but that is mainly because of the public bridleways. It mentions
 other parts of the commons 
without specifying the land or location of areas that may be used by horses. While this may be interpreted fairly loosely, it is also possible to restrict the use of such " other parts " very severely, and this is our fear.
The children from the special schools, of whom I have been speaking, like to go for riding holidays. I have conducted 30 or 40 such holidays for groups of children, and I cannot imagine a finer or more valuable use of one's time.
Earlier in the year, I mentioned in the House the fact that a former colleague of mine took a party of 12 maladjusted girls on to the South Downs at Petersfield. She begged for and borrowed—did not steal—12 horses and poines, and tentage, and took that party, in a period of eight days, over the South Downs from Peters-field to Eastbourne. The girls slept in tents at night and the horses were tethered nearby. The effect of that experience on those children, and on the horses and ponies, was electric. Most of the girls, having come back into ordinary schools, are now behaving very much more acceptably.
A similar exercise might be planned for Dartmoor. How damaging it would be if it became necessary to get a chit in order to do it. Think of the psychological effect on the children and the teacher who is giving up her time.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend is probably aware that last Friday in the House we had a wide-ranging debate which touched on many of these subjects. It was introduced by my


hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller). Many of my hon. Friends who are now present in the Chamber were also present for that debate, as was my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who will be replying——

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Hector Monro): He
will not.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I am sorry. But my hon. Friend the Minister was present throughout that debate, and I read very carefully the remarks he made in summing up. One of the points that he made—I was very pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) make it as well—concerned the need for balance.
I represent an urban constituency and it is most important to stress that those who live in urban constituencies, particularly in the great conurbations, are providing facilities for those who live in the country. They are doing so at considerable expense to themselves and to the ratepayers who live in those urban areas. The aim in all such debates should be to achieve balance. I was particularly pleased to hear my hon. Friend using that word, and I hope that the promoters will take cognisance of the fact that, as my hon. Friend says, horse riding has become an important aspect of urban life in many ways. There are many people for whom the possibility of making use of the facilities of Dartmoor is very important.

Mr. Greenway: That is absolutely right, and I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his most valuable intervention.
There are about 2 million riders in this country, and my hon. Friends from Devon ought to know that most of them come from urban areas. Their support of horses probably makes it possible for the countryman—I wish him well—to have the enjoyment that he has with horses.
It could well happen that, as a result of the Bill, the children that I mentioned and their teacher could be put to the indignity of having to get a chit or a series of chits in order to be allowed to ride on the moor. They could be put to the further indignity of having to say

exactly where they wished to go, leaving them with no sense of the excitement that comes from innovation—from suddenly saying " Let us stop now and pitch our tents here ", and so on. That would be a grave insult to the children and to their teacher. It would diminish enormously the enjoyment of the activity.
What is there to stop the Dartmoor authorities, under the Bill, from doing exactly what I have suggested? Furthermore, what would there be to stop those who control Exmoor, the Lake District, and all the other national parks and open spaces, from pursuing similar legislation?
I am amazed that more was not made by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes—I note that he is not present at the moment—about the enormous size of Dartmoor. This has particular relevance to the fears expressed about somebody dropping a bit of litter or throwing a stone at a log.
A relative of mine, who is a soldier, told me in a letter recently that in the early summer of 1977, he walked with a group of men from Bittaford, just east of Ivybridge, due north across southern Dartmoor to meet the A384 two and a half miles east of Two Bridges. He wrote:
The actual route we took was a 15-mile walk which took us most of the day and we met only one group of three people.
Where are these millions of people who, we are told, are droppjng litter and making life hell for the few locals?

Mr. John Carlisle: We must remember one sector of employment, namely, the proprietors of riding schools who provide the excellent facilities of which my hon. Friend speaks with such knowledge and eloquence. Like him, I fear that the Bill may be the tip of the iceberg and that a mass of regulations will restrict the activities of riding school proprietors and the facilities that they provide, which will affect the children to whom my hon. Friend has referred. We must remember riding schools and the employment that they provide for students and local boys and girls.

Mr. Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend for that valuable intervention.

Mr. Steen: When my hon. Friend was ruminating on the Bill, did he have


difficulty in reconciling the fact that the Bill, which is promoted by the Devon county council, is concerned to regulate activities on the common lands with the fact that the promoters have not done their utmost to stop the Army from bombing the northern part of the moor day and night and creating crevices and potholes all over the moor? They are more concerned with the commons than with the heart of the moor, which they continue to permit to be bombed and damaged daily.

Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend has made a telling point. If more than a year of legal negotiations with the promoters of the Bill by the British Horse Society and its representatives has produced not a word of change, we are in a serious situation. If horses cannot be ridden freely, though with proper consideration, they will not in this mechanical age be used at all and society will be a dreadful place without them.
I conclude with the words of Ronald Duncan:
 Where in the wide world can man find nobility without pride, friendship without envy, or beauty without vanity? Here, where grace is laced with muscle and strength by gentleness confined. He serves without servility, he has fought without enmity. There is nothing so powerful, nothing less violent. There is nothing so quick, nothing more patient. England's past has been borne on his back All our history is his industry. We are his heirs, he our inheritance. The Horse!

Mr. Denis Howell: The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) for the eloquent and moving way in which he put the case for the British Horse Society and all those who ride horses. I share his view about the place of the horse and the national parks in the lives of those who live in deprived, urban areas. I know of the exhilaration that youngsters feel when they have the opportunity to ride a horse.
I know Dartmoor well and go there each year on holiday. I declare an interest, because I am chairman of a trust in Birmingham for deprived children. It is associated with Liverpool. The purpose of that trust is to take youngsters who are in difficulties or who have been turned out of their homes to the countryside and to rehabilitate them by taking them on

lakes and up mountains and by allowing them to ride horses. Horse riding is therapeutic.
I should like to hear from the Government what their view is of the role of national parks in our society. I have a great deal of sympathy for those who earn their living in the national parks. I have visited the highest points of Dartmoor during a blizzard to meet people trapped by many feet of snow—people who were trying to look after their stock and to keep the milk industry going. I sympathise with them. I shall not say a word of criticism about them. I have also visited Dartmoor in the middle of the worst droughts that we have experienced—with spectacular results! [HON. MEMBERS: " It is still raining."] One reason why there was no water for the people of the South-West during the drought was that year after year we obstructed plans to build reservoirs on Dartmoor to provide that water. Some of the promoters of the Bill—I exclude the Devon county council and the national parks—took a parochial attitude to the role of the national park. That is a worrying aspect.
We must know how the House and the Minister regard the relationship between the local useage of the national park and the national interest. A question of principle is involved in whether we should approve the Bill. We have heard nothing from the Minister or his Department about the results of the countryside review committee's work and the second stage operations. We cannot resolve the great issues until a policy is determined by the Government and the House.
Nothing has been said about the relationship of the Dartmoor commoners' council to the national parks committee. We must know who will make the regulations, who will determine the issues, and what rights people will have in respect of them before we can reform a judgment on whether the Dartmoor commoners' council should be created.
How far would it undermine the national parks committee? What would be its relationship with the national parks committee? Those are extremely important questions. If we look at the proposed composition of the Dartmoor commoners' council, none of our fears are met in any way. The membership of the council, which will have extraordinary


powers for making regulations, is overwhelmingly composed of local interests, at the expense of national interests.
There are many matters of local interest—camping, cars, horse riding, and caravanning—tut Dartmoor does not belong exclusively to the local people. I am in favour of local interests taking charge of this national asset, and having a substantial say in its affairs, but not to this extent. We are told that there will be between 23 and 26 members of the council, and that 16 members will be commoners from the local community, including two from the parks authorities and two who will represent small graziers.. The Minister will know the concern that is felt about some of the appointments that are being made, and the feeling among many people that the appointments do not reflect the national interest. That is vital, because national funds are involved, and much of the money comes from the taxpayer. The national interest should be properly reflected on the national parks committee and on the Dartmoor commoners' council.
There are 16 members of the council from the local community, two from the parks authorities, two people representing owners of lands, and two commoners representing small graziers. The council may—not shall—co-opt not more than three persons as members of the council who can hold office for a period not exceeding three years. They might represent the national interest, but they will not be appointed by the Minister, and the council may or may not co-opt them. That is totally unacceptable.
At the end of the day, there may be no member representing the national as opposed to the local interest. Apart from the question of principle, it is a question of the right proportion of members on the committee to represent the national interest. To put forward a proposal whereby millions of people who visit Dartmoor each year will not be represented is extraordinary. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) would give an assurance on that and, if he wanted this Bill to proceed, that he would substantially change the proposed constitution of the council, or agree to its being substantially changed by the Select Committee when it comes before it.

Mr, Wellbeloved: The schedule to the Bill provides:
 No commoner shall be appointed to be a commoners' council member unless his name is recorded in the register as normally grazing not less than 50 sheep, 10 horses or 10 cattle.
That will exclude a large number of people who have commoners' rights. That is a restriction on the small man, which means that the council is likely to be comprised of people who graze substantially on the common, who will have little sympathy with the public who wish to use Dartmoor.

Mr. Howell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that provision to the attention of the House. That means that there will be no one representing recreational amenity on the commoners' council, and that even those who are members of the council will come from an extremely exclusive sector of the agricultural and local life of the community. If my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) went to the area, bought a house and took an interest in local affairs, according to that definition even he could not sit on the commoners' council.

Mr. Mawby: The two persons representing the rights of small graziers, whose names are recorded in the register, are normally recorded as grazing fewer than 50 sheep, 10 horses or 10 cattle, if they graze any animals. In other words, there are at least two persons on the council who will fall into the category referred to by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved).

Mr. Howell: We are indebted to the hon. Gentleman for that explanation. Does that mean that if we do not own any cattle and do not own any sheep we cannot serve on the council? If it does, I cannot see how any hon. Member can vote for the Bill. Unless our constituents own sheep or cattle on Dartmoor, they will have no say in the making of regulations for this national park, including all the prohibitions and questions of access that are important to the nation as a whole. It seems that that is what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I have used the word " breathtaking " once before in one of my interventions, and this is one of the the most ludicrous proposals that I have heard for many years in the House. It is totally unacceptable.

Mr. Steen: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is the worst form of discrimination that he has ever heard?

Mr. Howell: I think that it is. It knocks into a cocked hat all the racist and sexist discrimination legislation that the House has ever proceeded to enact. It seems that we have no say about Dartmoor unless we own sheep or cattle and they happen to graze there. It is a remark-able proposition to bring before the House. It is totally unacceptable. As I have said, we have not been told about the relationship between the council and the park authority.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The right hon. Gentleman has overlooked an important word. It is not said that no one shall be appointed to the commoners' council unless he has 50 sheep, 10 horses or 10 cattle. The Bill states that the members of that part of the commoners' council which is reserved for commoners must fall into that category. However, there are other members of the council who are not in that category. That might not be obvious to everyone in the Chamber from the way in which the right hon. Gentleman phrased his argument.

Mr. Howell: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I was relating what my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford told us to the constitution of the council. If the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is right, and I have no doubt that he is, it means that I must extend my proposition. It seems that it is a requirement to own sheep, cattle or land. We now have land added to the qualification.

Mr. Mawby: The object of the council is to bring some order into the husbandry practised in the park. However, control will normally still lie in the hands of the Dartmoor park authority. One must separate the two functions. The commoners' council is a means of self-discipline. Control—and changes in the control—of visitors to Dartmoor will still be the concern of the Dartmoor national park committee.

Mr. Howell: At the beginning of my speech I asked for someone to tell me about the relationship between the national park authority and the Dartmoor commoners' council. Even if I accept everything that the hon. Member for

Totnes has said, it cannot gainsay the fact that, whatever the Dartmoor commoners' council may do, it will affect the rights of others. A body may do something in its own self-interest in order to protect the livelihood and wherewithal of the agricultural and local community. I accept that that is desirable. However, there should be some representatives on the council who have the right to tell it not to do something that might affect the interests of ramblers, caravanners, those interested in natural historv and so on. I have never heard of a self-regulating body that had no one to represent the interests of those who might be affected by its decisions.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The right hon. Gentleman appears to have overlooked clause 3. Clause 3(2)(b) states:
 two by the Park Authority one of whom shall be a person appointed to the Park Authority in accordance with paragraph 11 of Schedule 17 to the Act of 1972 (appointments by the Secretary of State) ".
Presumably the Secretary of State bears in mind the factors mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman when making these appointments. However, the impression seems to have got around that a commoners' council is a council of commoners. The council contains commoners as well as non-commoners, representing other interests. That is set out in clause 3. The Committee will be at liberty to alter the proportions, if it thinks it right to do so.

Mr. Howell: I am glad to hear that. I considered clause 3 in some detail, and I understand it. I appointed such people for six years and I know what goes on. I know that, of the two park authority representatives, one is appointed by the Secretary of State. One does not have to be appointed by the Secretary of State. He may be appointed by the local authority. He or she will come from the neighbourhood.
In the Peak national park a good deal of argument is going on about the Minister's reappointments. He has been accused of kicking off all the Labour representatives who represented the national interest and I have been accused of kicking off all the Conservative members who were said to represent the national interest. I know the trouble that is taken about such appointments.


Although I think the Minister is unwise to remove some of those whom I appointed, he has the right to do so.
There is profound disquiet about how to appoint representatives to serve on the national parks. The present situation is unsatisfactory. More and more local people are coming in. It is often difficult to get national representatives from outside the immediate area. There is a lot of resentment in the local community when representatives are appointed.
I well remember making a change in representation in one national park—I will not identify it because I do not want to identify the individuals concerned. I went to that park on a ceremonial occasion when we had to walk 10 miles over the downs, and I was followed the whole way by a man whom I had just removed from that national park committee. In the course of my 10-mile walk I was met by his friends on horses who asked me what the devil I was doing. There are certainly deep resentments when one tries to bring people in from outside.
In practice, clause 3 means that we might have one of the Secretary of State's nominees representing the national interest if we are lucky. But the odds are that he or she will be a local person. Clause 3(iii) means that the council may appoint three others, but will not necessarily do so. That is a matter of profound dissatisfaction.

Mr. Steen: It may help the House if I clarify clause 3. In its present form the council could consist of no fewer than 23 and no more than 26 members. Of those 23, 16 will be graziers who run more than 50 sheep, 10 horses and 10 head of cattle on the common; two national park lieutenants, but only one who is nationally appointed; one Duchy representative, who will be a local man; two other landowners; two small graziers to be appointed not only by the local commoners' association but significantly by the 16 larger graziers on the council, often described as prairie farmers. Does the right hon. Member agree that it is very curious that there is no representation of those commoners with rights only of turbary and estovers, no representation of the venville commoners and no representation of independent amenity bodies concerned with the national parks

and public access?

Mr. Howell: I do not have the benefit of a university education, so the hon Member has an advantage over me, have not the faintest idea what he is talking about when he produces such terminology. No doubt we can have a drink later and he will be able to explair it to me. If he says it, I am quite happy to accept it.
I wish to turn to some of the main issues that should be determined by the Government nationally before this piece meal legislation is passed. There are some very important issues here. First, there is the whole question of amenity and the right of recreation within our national parks. I do not think that a local Bill of this sort is the right way in which this should be determined. A balance must be struck and there may have to be regulations. These things are best thought out nationally before we try to deal with them in this way.
The most welcome thing about the de-debate is the number of hon. Member; on both sides of the House who have said that, precious as the national parks are as our heritage, they have a dual role. They must provide for the local population and for those who enjoy tranquility, and they act as a safety lung for the industrialised and deprived areas of this country. I welcome that approach. It must be reflected in the management of our national parks and these councils.
The whole concept of a national park is a most important question. National parks were started in this country immediately after the war. The decision was controversial then, but over the years the concept has become accepted by everyone and the balance is also accepted. Arising out of that, we come to the rights of horsemen, campers, caravanners and re-creationists. I believe that we should dispose of this matter today one way or the other. Therefore, I must raise matters which I think require answers.
The hon. Gentleman has said that there is an adequate number of camping sites on Dartmoor. If there is, it is the only national park in the country where that is so. My experience as a Minister was that there were sufficient sites for most of the year, but not enough in peak periods. I should like to know how the park committee and Devon county council


propose to deal with the problem of saturation camping during the summer holidays, at Whitsun and at Easter. If we pay attention to planning, farmers and landowners will be assisted.
We need a dual system of planning whereby there are permanent camp sites and a mechanism for absorbing the large numbers of people who go to the sites at important times of the year—for example, in the summer. In the latter case, less sophisticated facilities would be required than for a permanent site. Nevertheless, farmers would be encouraged—in order to absorb the growing number of campers with more leisure time in which to enjoy the holiday period with their children—to open up their land. It would be profitable for them to do so as long as campers did not stay longer than two weeks. Farmers would thus be providing a national service to the camping population.
However, if we achieve that, the system must be regulated. Some authority must decide matters of sanitation and health. I am all for that, but we need assurances. However, those questions concern all national parks, not only Dartmoor.
What is to be done about cars and parking? I can see the point made by Devon county council. We are in danger—from the very weight of numbers of people driving into areas of outstanding natural beauty—of destroying, if we are not careful, the very amenities we are try-to preserve. That is a dilemma and is probably the reason for this Bill. If that is so, I give all credit to the people who have sponsored it. Nevertheless, these issues cannot be decided locally. We must think them through nationally.
I should like to see special provision for cars. I used to say to national park committees that if they did not provide for the camper and the car driver in ways that were satisfactory to the owners of the land, the camper and the driver would solve their own problems and local people would not like the solutions. Motorists would, for instance, park on the edges of lakes. Therefore, we should have car parks, associated with a free transport service, on the perimeters of the national parks.
That means that people like me who go to Dartmoor for holidays could leave our cars in Totnes—in the hon. Gentleman's

man's constituency—whose amenities attract me to spend my money. There could be a bus service which would go around Dartmoor dropping sightseers off at various beauty spots, and we could be brought back by that bus service. If it was a free service, that would be attractive. But it could be provided at a small cost. More sensible people would, I believe, appreciate that.
The Countryside Commission is doing a splendid job in taking people on guided walks around the national parks. I have joined some of them myself. They are excellent. A guide indicates what to look for and the individual decides whether he wishes to walk for half an hour, for two hours or for five hours. It is an excellent scheme, but how we relate it to the problems of this area I do not know.
I should like answers to those questions before we proceed further. For example, how will recreation and amenity representatives be elected or appointed to these various bodies?
Some parts of the Bill represent a pioneering step forward—that must be acknowledged—particularly the relationship between the rights of the landowners and agriculturists and the rights of access. I am rather inclined to the view that guaranteeing the rights of access to Dartmoor for the first time in legislation is an important precedent. I am rather neutral about its significance in this connection, but the inserting of such a precedent in a Bill is a matter of significance which ought not to be discounted. I know that a great deal of trouble has been taken by some of the recreational organisations, such as the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and so on, in order to achieve some sort of agreement, al-thought I know that they are not happy with regard to the question of composition.
I now turn to the whole question of general legislation on common land, upon which the Minister promised a statement long ago and which we have not yet had. The second stage of the general legislation on commons is a matter of great importance, and I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about that this evening.

Mr. Monro: Before the right hon. Gentleman builds up too many great expectations, he should realise that I am


here only to give the Government's view on this Bill, and not to wind up the debate or to give a long discourse on national parks in general.

Mr. Howell: I am well aware of what the Minister wants to do, which is quietly to slip away into the dead of night without saying anything of any significance. I have often been in that position myself. But my job, on behalf of the amenity movement in general, is to point out that we began the review of common land and a registration Act. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) introduced a Bill on the subject, and there was correspondence with the Minister. My hon. Friend has been kind enough to supply me with copies of the Minister's correspondence. On 26 February, the Minister told my hon. Friend:
 As regards access to common land, we are still considering the outcome of a public consultation exercise ".
The House, on the advice of the Minister, must decide whether this Bill should proceed in isolation from the general common land exercise which has now been conducted for some time. We must know where we are getting to in relation to the second stage of that exercise, because it affects access to common land and it substantially affects this Bill.
Again, I endorse the reservations of the hon. Member for Ealing, North about the access of horse riders and so on. When I look at clauses 9 and 12, I wonder whether we have got it right, particularly in relation to clause 12. I know that the amenity groups are now happier about clause 9 than they were. However, clause 12 deals with horses. I think that it gives very wide powers to the park authority which may well conflict with the rights, opportunities and privileges of horse riders using the moor, which I suppose they have been doing for hundreds of years.
We must not take away from horse riders the rights that they traditionally exercise. I recognise that there are problems about the maintenance of bridleways and that more money should be made available for that purpose. If constantly used, the bridleways can be damaged. That matter must be examined. If town and country can be brought together, and country folk and industrial and town workers are brought together, this serves

the interest of the nation. It should be the outlook of hon. Members to the Bill. Because we are not satisfied, so far, on the issues of principle that have been raised, we shall be very reluctant to support the Bill if there is a Division. I believe that there should be such a Division.

Mr. Peter Mills: I welcome the debate, and I must declare an interest. Virtually the whole of Dartmoor is in my constituency, and it is important that I should be able to say a few words. I had some doubts about the creation of the Bill. I wavered considerably, but I have decided to support it in principle. I still have a few reservations, but I believe that in Committee many of these matters can, and must, be put right.
I take some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) very much to heart. The scope of the Bill cannot be extended, but some improvements must be made in Committee. I am certain that the promoters will agree to those improvements. The question arises of the composition of the council. I had not fully realised the significance of this matter. That must be put right, as must the relationship with the national park authority.
I hope that those who serve on the Committee will heed the views expressed by many hon. Members in this interesting debate, but I must say that some comments have been rather wild. I have no wish to be rude. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) talked about night and day bombing on Dartmoor. I live there, and I have never been bombed in my life. Where my hon. Friend got the idea of bombing day and night from is beyond me. There is artillery fire for a few days, but that is strictly controlled. I wonder whether he can prove that Dartmoor is bombed day and night. Without wishing to be unkind, I would say that he was indulging in slight exaggeration, to say the least.
There has been reference to the size of Dartmoor and to the question of litter and similar matters. Dartmoor is wild and it is enormous. There are, however, certain areas into which the problems of


riding, of litter and of camping are compressed. I seek to support the Bill for the reasons expressed in the House. I want to see these areas controlled, preserved and helped. They are under attack. Vast areas of Dartmoor are completely wild and will, I hope, never be spoilt.
It is in the small areas where problems arise, and it is these areas with which the Bill seeks to deal. I hope that in Committee matters can be put right and that the House will allow the people of Devon to have a Bill that they want. The councillors have voted for it. I realise the implications nationally, but Devon county council and Devon folk are giving a lead and taking an initiative to try to deal with the problems that exist in our area.

Mr. Russell Kerr: What about the farmers?

Mr. Mills: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, who has not been present during the debate, this matter is not concerned solely with farmers. The whole basis of what I have been trying to say relates to the problems presented by holidaymakers and the tourist industry in certain areas. We must get the matter right. It can be got right. I am certain that the promoters will achieve that aim if the Bill is given a Second Reading.
Dartmoor is one of the largest chunks of my constituency, and its management and future are of great concern to me. Hence the importance of the Bill and the need to get it right. I congratulate the promoters on at least trying to do that in the difficult circumstances that we have in Devon. For example, Ian Mercer and many others have played and are playing a genuine role in trying to deal with the problems that we are experiencing.
I have had dozens of letters from people who are opposed to the Bill, and I propose to refer to some of the points that they have made. It is right that in a democracy we should hear the views of those in the county of Devon, let alone outside, who are opposed to the Bill. I can understand and sympathise somewhat with those who would like to see the clock put back. I am not being rude, because that is what some people want to do. They want no changes, no reservoirs, no roads, no Army manoeuvres. But that is just not

possible. The pressures on Dartmoor are enormous and we need to do something about them. Even the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath agrees with that.
People cannot live on fresh air and the view. It is not possible to do that in 1980. Regrettably, we have to make some changes. Farming methods do not stand still. They have to change. Our Forces must be allowed to practise on Dartmoor. We need to take the holiday interest seriously. We need to consider those who want to use Dartmoor for recreation and rest. We need to improve roads and to provide water. All this can be done without destroying the basic beauty of Dartmoor. It needs give and take, and understanding. I believe that the Bill sincerely tries to do that. It may have mistakes, and it may not be exactly right. Let us get it right and give it a trial for the benefit of those who come into Devon and those who live there.
The Bill came about because of concern over certain aspects of Dartmoor. Some hon. Members have spoken as though they had just been to Devon and seen it for the first time. Those who live there know htat the problems are increasing and that they must be dealt with. There are problems of public access. There is a need for better standards of livestock husbandry. Many farmers on Dartmoor are first-class; others are not. We need some control and say in these matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree, who is rather given to exaggeration, talked about Dartmoor being littered with dead sheep and cattle. That is not true. There may be the odd one or two. If they die, perhaps in remote places, it is often difficult to get to them. If we are to move forward, I hope that these problems will not be exaggerated.
I believe that a partnership must be forged with the object of improving both farming and recreational opportunities. That is what the Bill is all about.
There is much more that I should like to say. The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) has something wrong with his head. He keeps shaking it. That is unfortunate. I shall continue without worrying too much about the shaking of his head.
I want to mention some of the fears that my constituents and others have expressed about the Bill. First, the honorary secretary of the Dartmoor commoners' association, Mr. Woolcock, has written to me very strongly in favour of the Bill. That is natural, because it concerns the association greatly.
A farmer, Mr. Stuart Baker, is strongly opposed to the Bill. Some farmers are very unhappy about these proposals. I suggest that some are unhappy because it may mean that there are changes in farming policy which are right and proper in the interests of livestock and of Dartmoor generally.
Mr. Kelloch of Buckfastleigh in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) is concerned about the power of arrest. That should be looked at very carefully. Mr. Palmer of Sheepstor, Yelverton sent me a list of 50 signatories against the Bill. Not all the people on Dartmoor are in favour of the Bill.
Captain Madgwick of Tavistock is concerned about the wisdom and fairness of the Bill, because he is an owner of land. His policy would be to have management agreements, which would be very difficult, because people do not know where their land starts and where it ends.
I have a letter, in which the House might be interested, from Captain Farr of Ivybridge, who is a horseman. I do not know what the right hon. Member for Small Heath would say about this, but the letter reads:
 For information. Mills. Typical socialist grabbing and grasping, undermining the morale, freedom, peace of this generation and the next. How much longer do we have to endure? 
That shows that there is some opposition to the Bill.

Mr. Denis Howell: It only proves that people who vote Conservative do not know where their real interest lies.

Mr. Mills: I shall not follow that argument.
The West Devon district council, through its chief executive, has expressed grave doubts in a long list of amendments. I could go on naming various parish councils around the edge of Dart-moor which have been concerned about the Bill, it is right that attention should

be paid to that type of opposition in Committee.
The majority of the people to whom I have spoken, farmers, those concerned with tourism and riding establishments, and those who love the national park, believe that something has to be done. The Bill is a genuine and sincere attempt to do just that. I give it my support, and I believe and hope that the House will do so too, so that in Committee we can make the changes that are necessary.
I am sure that the promoters will listen sympathetically to the points that have been raised. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister exactly how the Bill fits into the national question of national parks. I hope that hon. Members will not throw out the views of the people of Devon. I hope that they will consider their fears, difficulties and problems and at least let the Bill go to Committee so that the problems can be ironed out. If the Bill it not given a Second Reading, there will be many disappointed people in Devon tomorrow.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Hector Monro): It
may assist the House if I intervene for a few moments at this stage to indicate the Government's attitude to the Bill. With private legislation it is the custom for the Minister to be brief and to give the opportunity for the hon. Member presenting the Bill, in this case my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), to wind up the debate and answer the questions put by hon. Members.
It is important to bear in mind that my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills), who has a great knowledge of Dartmoor and of agriculture, tourism and everything else in the West Country, has given a clear indication that his balanced judgment, after weighing up the comments he has heard for and against the Bill, is that it should have a Second Reading so that it can be considered in Committee.
That was the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes in presenting the Bill. It is in Committee that the answers to questions asked by hon. Members tonight can be discussed in detail. In the past few weeks we have had the opportunity, through the good fortune


of Private Members' motions, to discuss at length and in great detail the rural economy, in particular last week in relation to a national park. Hon. Members then raised many points that have also been made tonight concerning the rural economy and how it affects those who live in the areas concerned. It is not for me, therefore, to embark on any wide-ranging comments, because we are here to deal with the narrow issue of whether this Bill should proceed to Committee.
The promoters, Devon county council, are to be commended for the efforts they have put into the Bill, which provides for the first management scheme for common land in keeping with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Common Land in England and Wales, which reported in 1958. I understand that the council held consultations on its proposals over a period of two years or more before depositing the Bill in Parliament, so no one can say that it did not try to do its homework before presenting the Bill to the House.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Could the Minister give an absolute assurance that the consultations included all those responsible national bodies known to have an interest in the use of Dartmoor?

Mr. Monro: No, I most certainly could not give that assurance, because the list of people with an interest in Dart-moor and in all the national parks is very long indeed. Last Friday I referred in the House to the important part played in our national life by the voluntary organisations which are concerned with conservation, with our heritage and also with the national parks. But I am assured that the county council consulted widely. It may have consulted universally with all these bodies, but I could not give that assurance at the Dispatch Box at this moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes may be able to do so.
I realise the concern that has been caused over recent months in particular by clauses 9 and 10. Clause 10 enables the park authority to make byelaws controlling certain activities, particularly re-creation. This is a power which I have looked at very carefully, not least because I have a personal interest in flying and riding. I am not anticipating that at my age I shall want to go hang gliding,

but I have always been particularly interested in anything to do with flying, and, as a matter of interest, I hold a pilot's licence. I have looked at the question very carefully and, as hon. Members know, received a great many letters about this aspect of the Bill.
I am reassured by the fact that any byelaw has to be confirmed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and, furthermore, that if he has any worries at all he has the power, under clause 18, to call for an inquiry. Under the legislation as it stands, byelaws in any way affecting re-creation could not be introduced without first being looked at and considered by the Home Secretary.
I am aware that the hang gliders, campers and the caravanners, who are also particularly concerned, have, with good will on all sides, come to agreed amendments which will be put forward by the promoters at the Committee stage, should that be reached. As I have already indicated, I hope that there will be an opportunity to do just that. The amendments will ensure that hang gliding continues on agreed sites, and will exclude from any byelaws that could be made under clause 10 any possibility of preventing camping and caravanning on enclosed land with the owners' and occupiers' consent.
I am also aware of the concern of riding enthusiasts, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). Clause 9 provides for legal access to the commons on foot, but not to riders on horseback. Riders could be subject to byelaws under clause 10 which would be subject to approval by the Home Secretary and could be closely examined by the Committee.
I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to the vigilance and hard work that the national parks, committee puts into maintaining high standards in the national parks. It is concerned about the damage to turf and bridleways and wishes to have additional controls. That is why clause 10 is drafted as it is.
Clause 12 has also caused concern. It gives power for bridleways to be closed if they are overworked or damaged in wet weather, but only provided that alternatives are available. There is no question


of riding being prevented on all bridle-ways at the same time. It could be prevented only on limited stretches to enable repair work to be done and to allow a rest period which turf needs if it is overused by horses. There again, there is some reassurance for the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North.

Mr. Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that the position affecting riders is substantially changed by the Bill, because de facto rights of access to Dart-moor, which have existed for riders for centuries, are to be removed? That is the issue.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Quite right.

Mr. Monro: My hon. Friend is not correct. Rights have existed, but all are basically trespassers, although no one has ever taken action to prevent access. Riders would still be able to go where they liked, but they would be subject to action by the commoners for trespass.

Mr. Greenway: Should not something that has been going on well and satisfactorily for centuries be left alone?

Mr. Kerr: That is right.

Mr. Monro: The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr), who has probably never been west of London, should let those hon. Members who are interested in this matter get on with it.

Mr. Kerr: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister is grie viously misinformed. I have spent many a happy hour—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Monro: If I am misinformed, it is by the display of ignorance of the West Country by the hon. Member for Felt-ham and Heston in the past 10 minutes, He would do far better to allow the debate to proceed so that the other West Country Members can talk about areas that particularly interest them.

Mr. Kerr: I am a consumer.

Mr. Monro: The conclusion that the Government draw is that the Bill appears to strike a balance to enable all interests and activities to flourish on Dartmoor

commons without one activity inhibiting the rights and enjoyment of others.
The points raised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his report to Parliament on the Bill have been met in another place. Subject to assurances that we have received about amendments being fulfilled, we have no further objections. A number of hon. Members are still concerned, but the place to argue the differences of opinion is in Committee. Hon. Members should give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Denis Howell: Before the Minister sits down, will he——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has already resumed his seat. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) has already made his contribution.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on what I believe to be one of the most important Private Bills to have come before the House for many years.
For those living amidst the stress and turmoil of the cities—and I represent one of those cities—the countryside offers an essential and important escape. More and more people are driven to leave the hectic and intense lifestyle in the urban conurbations for the solace and quiet of the country. Two-thirds of our population live in urban areas. For nearly 50 years we have witnessed a movement out, the development of the suburbs and commuter travel. People want an open feeling in their lives. They want to feel the countryside where they live and they want to be within easy reach of the cities where they work.
Dartmoor is a unique area in Britain. It stands defiant, largely untouched, 2,000 ft or more into the sky. It has a wild terrain and dramatic rock formations. Its remote and beautiful landscape offers to urban man a moving and satisfying experience.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Dartmoor is not 2,000 ft or more.

Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend knows that. Yes Tor is 2,029 ft.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friend is talking about a hundredth of 1 per


[Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop.] cent, of Dartmoor. He has got his decimal point wrong.

Mr. Steen: I am grateful for that clarification.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Yes Tor is not 2,029 ft but 2,028 ft.

Mr. Steea: I am grateful for that interjection. Acording to my Ordnance survey map, which might have been published some year ago, the spot height of Yes Tor is 2,029 ft. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is reading the new Ordnance Survey map. I was giving a poetic and descriptive view of the moor. I was not suggesting that all the moor is 2,000 ft or higher, but part of it is.
For hundreds of years man has been drawn to the moor. A place of foreboding and beauty, Dartmoor has captured the imagination of man from neolithic times. The moor has never been more under threat than it is by modern man. From neolithic man we have wonderful artistic hut circles and stone rows which are great memorials to the archaeology of thousands of years ago when Dartmoor was inhabited by neolithic man.
Today Dartmoor is under threat. Urban man has a love-hate relationship with this extraordinary and dramatic land mass. It comprises more than 400 square miles of granite highlands in which ancient man left some of the world's finest monuments. They delight the archaeologists and geologists alike.
Let there be no mistake. Dartmoor is part of our national heritage and must be protected at all costs against the incursions of those who have already ruined our cities. I speak of our planners. One has only to look at Birmingham and Liverpool to see the damage that they have done. One of the beauties of Dartmoor is that the planners have not been allowed near the place. They have not intervened to spoil the beauties of the moor.

Mr. Mawby: I cannot let that remark go by without commenting. I pointed out to one of my hon. Friends who spoke of concrete jungles that if someone wishes to construct any building or residence on Dartmoor he will have to surmount two hurdles—two planning committees. Those are the planners that my hon. Friend does not like. There is the local planning committee and the Dartmoor park com-

mittee. We have managed to keep Dart moor in the condition in which my hon Friend hopes it will remain because o the existence of those two committees.

Mr. Steen: When I was talking about the planners having not spoilt Dartmoor I had in mind the mess that the planner have made of the cities. The planner have not been allowed to build on the moor and to despoil it. The corollary o that is that the planners have prevented building. The planners have not been allowed to spoil the moor. My hon Friend is correct to say that the planner: have helped not to spoil it.
I am glad to see the right hon. Mem ber for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) with us. He and I are proud members of that august body, the Dartmoor preservatior association, which is led by one of tht most resolute and courageous of cam paigners, Lady Sylvia Sayer, who is nov the president of the association. I think that the House recognises that Lady Sylvia has done more than most other; to protect the moor from utilitarian man I am greatly indebted to her for championing the preservation of the moor against innumerable cohorts of civil servants, bureaucrats and others who for some reason wish to meddle in the moor,

Mr. Mawby: Does Lady Sylvia support the principle of the Bill?

Mr. Steen: I must not attempt to speak for that——

Mr. Mawby: She does.

Mr. Steen: —remarkable, august lady, It is fair to say that she has such severe reservations about the Bill that I and the right hon. Member for Battersea, North may feel that we still have to decide, after listening to the whole debate and as Members of Parliament for urban areas some miles from Dartmoor, which way to vote if there is a Division. We shall have to decide whether to support the Bill. Neither I nor the right hon. Gentleman is the agent or servant of Lady Sylvia. We are greatly influenced by her wisdom, experience and knowledge of the local situation. However, we are not pawns in her game, although we are playing a formidable part in raising some of the issues that she rightly wishes to be brought to the attention of the House.
I was saying that Dartmoor has to be protected against the incursions of man. Dartmoor has had to fight for its freedom to keep its natural remoteness, for its beauty and its majesty, which urban man constantly wishes to defile. As hon. Members on both sides of the House will know, the Dartmoor association was threatened by a reservoir which would have destroyed much of the moor. There would have been cohorts of cars coming to the moor. There would have been picnickers and all the entrails that go with a reservoir.
The Government are now involved in an inquiry into whether a motorway should run through the northern part of the moor. Again, the moor is under attack. The inquiry has recently ended and the inspector has to decide whether to lop off a piece of the moor on the northern boundary just south of Okehampton or whether he prefers the southern route, which would not eat into the national park. One must take note of such precedents. We believe that the national park is sacrosanct. However, there is a danger that the Minister may support a Bill that will result in interference in part of the moor.
Dartmoor has had to fight for its remoteness. Let us hope that the present inquiry will not allow Dartmoor to be spoilt. The moor should be protected against any future incursions. The Government are in every aspect of our lives. They are responsible for military training on Dartmoor. The Army throws bombs all over the place. I am glad that I was corrected when I suggested that the Army threw them at night. It throws them only during the day. It does so only after red flags have been put on top of the tors. Not only does one hear the thud of bombs and the crack of machine guns, but one knows exactly where the range is. It is possible to see red flags flying and troops walking against the sky line. That is not a part of everyday life on Dartmoor that one would wish to encourage.
Dartmoor has not always been successful in its fight against the incursions of urban man. There is an 800 ft. mast at North Hessary tor, which is 1,600 ft. high. One can see that mast from nearly every bog to the north and south, even if one does not wish to do so. It spoils the natural beauty of the area. Man has made intrusions and incursions into the

moor. We seek to ensure that this Bill does not encourage more.
Planners have turned our urban areas into disasters. We are now debating a Bill that has been promoted by a county council. I am sure it is well intentioned, but it seeks to bring its type of officialdom and organisation into a desolate, remote and unspoilt area. Perhaps it is not content with its present powers and seeks to enter such an area, because it is the one spot that it does not have in its grips.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend has put forward an excellent argument. Would he advance same argument if Derbyshire county council and other county councils covering the Peak park had put forward a similar Bill in respect of the Peak national park?

Mr. Steen: That may well be a trick question.

Mr. Winterton: I support my hon. Friend's argument and I seek to sustain him. However, bearing in mind that the Peak national park is closer to his constituency than Dartmoor, would he be as articulate about that park?

Mr. Steen: I would be even more articulate. There have been attempts to ward off the incursions of Government and of the public sector. I was mildly surprised to hear the Minister say that he supported the county council.
This is a brave Bill and represents a brave attempt to control something which, I am happy to say, is out of control. He did the Government an injustice by suggesting that there should be another Bill. The Conservative Party is committed to fewer Acts of Parliament. We want fewer administrative regulations. We wish to ensure that the Bill will not create more bureaucracy, more tiers and more hierarchies. One need only imagine wardens on Dartmoor. I have been informed that they will not all wear boots, arm bands and caps. However, the existence of wardens will cause great concern to many people and will prove costly.
The Bill seeks to regulate, control and impose so-called order when the moor has flourished for years without such order. Some of my hon. Friends have explained why the public need a statutory right of access, but since William the Conqueror


people have managed very well without that right. One wonders why the county council suddenly feels that it should be introduced now.
The county council rightly seeks to protect those parts of the moor which have been abused. In order to do that it suggests that the very people living around the moor should be represented in a commoners' council. This issue has caused considerable concern. The county council has put forward some very odd criteria, almost biblical in their wording. They refer to horses, beasts and oxen instead of using modern terminology. Although the council is right to argue for some protection of the moor—and I understand the need for that protection—it has gone about it in the wrong way and got the whole thing hopelessly wrong. The council has excluded anyone other than those people who are grazing animals on the moor. Although it is true that the 16 graziers out of the 23 or 26 members of the council must each have 50 sheep, 10 horses or 10 cattle before they are allowed on the commoners' council, it is also true that there are only two national park representatives or two small graziers to be appointed not by their local commoners' association but significantly by the 16 larger graziers. The idea of more bureaucracy and a larger council is something that Members on both sides would rebel against.
We must ensure that if the Bill is given a Second Reading clause 3 is suitably amended. Under clause 3 there

is no representation of those commoners with rights only of turbary and estovers, no representation of the venville commoners and no representation of the independent amenity bodies concerned with national parks and public access. Yet these minor commoners are the venville men and the public who will have the legal right of access to common land. All are subject to the council's regulations and byelaws, as well as to penalties and infringements of the same. They will also have to foot the bill as taxpayers and ratepayers for the council's administrative, professional and technical services.

The commoners' council will need to have administration, professional help and technical services. Who will pay for that? Obviously the taxpayers and ratepayers of the area. There has been little justice in this, and amendments are needed to provide that one representative of the non-grazier commoners and at least one from the recreational and amenities organisations should be appointed to serve on the council.

Clause 4 has probably caused more anxiety—

Mr. Wellbeloved: Mr. Wellbelovedrose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 19, Noes 63.

Division No. 267]
AYES
[10 pm


Alexander, Richard
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Gummer, John Selwyn
Monro, Hector


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hicks, Robert
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Colvin, Michael
Jenkln, Rt Hon Patrick



Cope, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Mr. Ray Mawby and


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Mr. Robin Maxwell Hyslop.


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mates, Michael



NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Leighton, Ronald


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Durant, Tony
McCartney, Hugh


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Eastham, Ken
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Blackburn, John
Evan", John (Newton)
Maxton, John


Body, Richard
Ford, Ben
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Greenway, Harry
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Haynes, Frank
Morton, George


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Heddle, John
Murphy, Christopher


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hooley, Frank
Myles, David


Cowans, Harry
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Nelson, Anthony


Cranborne, Viscount
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Newton, Tony


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kerr, Russell
Parris, Matthew


Dover, Denshore
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Pawsey, James




Race, Reg
Straw, Jack
Waller, Gary


Richardson, Jo
Tilley, John
Wellbeloved, James


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Tinn, James
Winterton, Nicholas


Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)
Torney, Tom



Rooker, J. W.
Waddington, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Sever, John
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)
Mr. Marcus Kimball and


Stallard, A. W.
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Steen, Anthony




Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question accordingly negatived.

MATERNITY UNITS (GRAMPIAN REGION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Mr. David Myles: I am pleased to have obtained this Adjournment debate, as I believe that there are many things concerning the Grampian health board's policies in this functional area which require airing. I want mainly to speak on the closing of the maternity unit at Dufftown. I understand very well the rather awkward position in which my hon. Friend the Minister finds himself, because he is obliged to rule in a dispute in which those submitting the proposal comprise a body appointed by his right hon. Friend. On the other hand, many of those objecting to the proposal are the elected representatives of the people living in the area. In fact, the objectors comprise virtually all the people living in the Dufftown area.
The strength of feeling on the subject can be measured by the fact that three local people from Dufftown, representing public opinion—a local doctor, a local regional councillor, who is also the chairman of the social work department of Grampian regional council, and the secretary of the Speyside and district council of social service—felt it proper to travel from Dufftown at their own expense in order to support this objection to the board's proposals.
In order to reinforce my argument, I should like to list those who have banded together to oppose the proposals. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Pollock) wishes to intervene later, also in support. In addition, support has come from the Moray district council, the local regional councillor, who is present for the debate, the Speyside and district council of social service, the secretary of

which is present, Moray local health council, Moray trades council, all the community associations, the local national farmers union as well as young mothers and others who organised a petition which was signed by no fewer than 2,589 people in the area. It is worth noting that in Dufftown itself the signatories totalled 98 per cent. of the adult population. Therefore, we have an awkward situation in which my hon. Friend must make up his mind whether to back the decision of his appointees or to pay heed to the overwhelming desires of local people in the Dufftown area.
In those circumstances, any Government who ignore such weight of public opinion do so at their peril. These are reasonable people. I should like to quote from a letter that I have received from the Speyside and district council of social service:
 It has never been disputed that the maternity unit of six beds at the Stephen Hospital is underutilised, but still considered that a unit on even a reduced scale should be maintained in order to retain this important service for the local expectant mothers.
This view is taken for a number of reasons that have been adequately expressed, but particularly in consideration of the climatic conditions to which Speyside is exposed during the winter period.
Nearly everyone in Scotland has heard of the Dufftown area and the roads between Dufftown and Huntly, between Tomintoul and Dufftown, and between Tomintoul and the Lecht road all being blocked. They are not only blocked. It is far more common for them to be extremely treacherous. One can imagine a young, fairly harassed expectant father, if I may use the phrase, rushing his wife off to a maternity hospital in the middle of the night and going off the road.
Speyside is situated on the extreme western side of the Grampian region. The single journey from Tominoul to Aberdeen involves a distance of nearly 80 miles. Even the journey to Elgin from Tomintoul constitutes a distance of 35 miles.
Notwithstanding the foregoing points, the objectors have continually tried to


gain acceptance of certain alternatives that it was felt would provide minimal safeguards for this exposed rural area. They are the establishment of a full consultant obstetric unit with back-up facilities to be provided at Elgin. This would obviate the frequent necessity of pregnant women being transported on the long and often difficult journey to Aberdeen. An alternative is to maintain an emergency maternity unit of one of two beds at the Stephen hospital, Dufftown, to cater for emergencies that could so easily occur due to climatic conditions.
It is surely significant that on the day that the Minister visited Dufftown to hear objections a baby was born in the hospital in just such an emergency. The roads on that day were so bad that I did not even take the road myself—I did not have an expectant mother with me—over the hill from Dufftown to Huntly. I took the roundabout way through Keith. It is strongly felt that those suggested alternatives are reasonable and constructive, bearing in mind the Speyside situation.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will say that one of the main reasons for the closure is to provide more geriatric beds. There is no dispute about the need to increase geriatric care. The Grampian regional social work department is doing just that in the area. The trouble is that the board's full proposals, which are understood to include the closure of the county hospital, would reduce the number of geriatric beds available for old people. If that is not so, there is need for the board to make its proposals clear—much clearer than in the two consultative booklets. Much of the acrimony that has arisen could have been prevented if the board had been more open and frank and genuinely used the consultative procedures.
It may be said that the shortage of midwives is the compelling reason for the closure. In the area, seven hospital staff, four community staff and one newcomer are already looking for work. All have had necessary refresher courses. This proposal would put them out of work as midwives.
There are many more compelling arguments which it is impossible for me to deploy in the time allowed, but I sincerely request my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to meet

a small delegation to hear those arguments fully so that they may understand the serious nature of the situation.

Mr. Alex Pollock: I am pleased to have the chance of adding my weight to the voice of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Myles) in the arguments that he has put forward this evening. It is essential that the House be left in no doubt whatsover about the strength of local feeling in Grampian about the proposed cutback in maternity services in that region. I realise that this is not the place or time to go into detailed arguments about the pros and cons, but a debate such as this can provide an opportunity for the main arguments to be laid before the House.
I should emphasise that I also have a direct constituency interest. Many mothers in my constituency would look to the maternity facilities based in Banff for help in a crisis. Therefore, this debate has wider ramifications than those restricted purely to the Banff part of the Grampian region. I trust that, in his reply, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will take that into account.
This debate has wide ramifications for those in rural areas. The decision to which the Secretary of State has given his consent highlights the worries faced by rural areas which are desperate to keep a strong infrastructure but feel that somehow the centralist, bureaucratic mentality is conducting a war of attrition in which, year by year, the facilities available to allow them to survive are made more and more difficult.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie)—a man with a distinguished ministerial record—for having seen fit to come and listen to the argument. I think that he recognises the implications of this debate for the whole of Scotland.
What worries us is that we are facing a problem about which the centralist, bureaucratic approach, on paper, is that it is clear that we must concentrate services in the large centres of population. However, the House will realise that, if the rural community is to survive, that philosophy can have little relevance. If we are to maintain a strong rural community, we must equally rely on the Government to provide those necessary services to allow the rural areas to exist.


That necessarily involves the provision of adequate maternity, geriatric and other services.
What worries us is that if those who live in the more remote communities are faced with bureaucratic decisions, with only limited consultation among those who are in the front line, the response will increasingly be to say " The Government do not care about us, and the health board does not care about us. There is only one choice left, and that is to leave the countryside and go into the city ". If that is the option, that is a very dangerous path for the Government to follow.
My hon. Friends, and I suspect some Opposition Members, recognise that there is a place for the rural community. But that rural community can be strong only provided it is confident that there is adequate recognition on the part of the Government of the necessary facilities to allow it to survive. Therefore, I plead with the Government to recognise that when they argue about a cutback in expenditure they must not take that argument so far as to say that that will lead to an irreversible cutback in public provision in the rural areas.
There is increasing unease on the part of those in the upper Speyside area that appointees of the Government have decided on a plan of reconstruction of health service facilities without any proper procedure of consultation with those who are most directly affected by the cuts. I am on common ground with my hon. Friend the Member for Banff when I say that there is something close to amazement among the local medical practitioners, the regional councillors and the local spokesmen for the social services, who cannot understand why the health board has to be so secretive about the reasons that compel it to accept a programme which will make life in the rural communities ever more difficult.
That leads me to the main thrust of my contribution to the debate, which is to plead with the Minister to allow the responsible spokesmen from that community an opportunity to have a meeting at ministerial level to put the fears of that community to the Government, and to have a direct dialogue with the Scottish Office about the reasons that have compelled them to reach this point of view. Unless there is an open discussion between those who are in charge

of the Government and those who have a chance to elect the Government, we shall not operate the open democracy in which I so fervently believe.

The Under-Secretary of Stale for Scotland (Mr. Russell Fairgrieve): In the
time that is left, I shall endeavour to respond to the points that have been made.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Myles) on being successful in what I think is the first Adjournment debate in this Parliament initiated by a Scottish Tory Back Bencher. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Pollock) who supported my hon. Friend the Member for Banff, and to the right hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie), who has stayed with us.
I have listened with great interest and care to what my hon. Friends have had to say on this important question of the Grampian health board's proposals relating to maternity units in peripheral areas and geriatric services within its field of responsibility.
The House may be surprised to learn that I agree with much of what has been said during the debate. The issue is of importance and deep concern to the people of the area. I know this very well both in my capacity as the Minister responsible and as Member for Aberdeenshire, West. It was in recognition of the strength of the opposition to the board's proposals that I personally visited Dufftown on 14 December 1979 to listen to the case presented by various bodies and individuals who were objecting to the board's proposals, in particular those relating to Stephen cottage hospital, Duff-town and also Turriff cottage hospital.
While, as I thought proper, the health board was not invited to be directly represented at this meeting, it had made available premises at the Dufftown health centre. It had been arranged that a baby was delivered at the Dufftown maternity unit a few days before my arrival, and the objectors also ensured that snow fell during the meeting, thus emphasising the points that they wished to make. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banff pointed out—he took another route—I was lucky enough, and no more, to make Grampian Television that evening.


I can therefore claim that I have experienced at as near first hand as possible all the factors which as Minister it was proper for me to take into account in advising the Secretary of State on what decision he should reach.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banff was present at that meeting. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn was also to be present but unfortunately he had a previous arrangement to take his wife to hospital—not to Dufftown hospital, not to Forres, nor to Elgin, but to Raigmore hospital, Inverness, where she was delivered of her second child, a bonny, bouncing boy.
To clarify one point, I should emphasise that the Secretary of State's decision relates only to the board's proposals regarding the two specific hospitals at Duff-town and Turriff. Nevertheless, the objectors quite properly referred to the board's proposals for the future of maternity services and the development of geriatric services throughout the area.
Reference has been made in this debate to two booklets—" Future of the Peripheral Maternity Units " and " Future Provision of Hospital Services for the Elderly in the Grampian Area ". These were two very substantial documents, published in 1978, sent out to 70 bodies, from 60 of which replies were received. That is consultation, but consultation does not necessarily mean acquiescence.
In these green and blue books the board has outlined in some detail its proposals and has explained the reasoning behind them. I have to say at the outset that these propasais are in line with Government policy generally. " The Way Ahead " was published by the last Administration, but in the emphasis which it lays on the need for increasing geriatric provision throughout Scotland I am at one with Labour Members in accepting that this is a pressing need in the Health Service.
I may also add with regard to the hospitals about which we are talking tonight, that there have been no deliveries at Dufftown since this great delivery of which I was a witness—that is, July of last year—and that at Turiff there have been no deliveries since August of last year, because, of course, there is not the necessary

incentive for midwives to be present at these small maternity units.
The board has also argued that there is an over-provision of maternity beds. This aspect of its proposals is the more controversial but it is one that is difficult to dispute, on the basis of throughput of maternity patients, where the percentages are very low indeed.
Indeed, not even the objectors have argued that the maternity beds, in particular at Dufftown and Turriff, have been fully utilised. Rather, they have contended that the provision should continue to be made even if there has been marked under-utilisation in recent years.
This is an argument which, frankly, I cannot accept. It would be valid only if satisfactory alternative services could not be made available elsewhere. But the offering of a satisfactory alternative is precisely what the board has done. Of course, my hon. Friends and others who object to he proposals will find this difficult to accept, but I have looked at this point very carefully indeed and I cannot see that the board could have reached any other sensible decision.
All first confinements and any other cases thought likely to be difficult are already referred to specialist units elsewhere and will, of course, continue to be so referred under the new proposals. What we are really arguing about is the question of maintaining small maternity units equipped on a fully comprehensive basis. I cannot believe that the attempt to maintain such a provision represents the best use of the board's resources and the Secretary of State and I have therefore accepted the board's proposal for a change of use in these services per se. By that I mean that, even if the question of geriatric provision did not arise, we would still consider the board's case proved for the closure of these maternity beds.
I stress that because it has been argued that the board, desperate for more geriatric provision, has found a makeshift solution by proposing withdrawal of maternity beds. I do not accept that argument. Of course, the two things are inter-related and it is no more than prudent planning on the part of the board to have proposed that a provision which in its view was no longer required for maternity services should be


used for geriatric services. It had first to prove the case for closure of these maternity beds. It would not have been a convincing argument that it wished to use the premises for geriatric provision. If we should have kept the maternity provision, we would have done so and found some other solution to the geriatric question.
In short, therefore, the board's case has related to the rationalisation of services and to making the best use of the resources of the Health Service. That is its job as the Secretary of State's agent for the Health Service in the Grampian area. I am glad that it has carried it out efficiently and, while I fully apprecate all the heartache that inevitably results from a decision of this kind, I remain in no doubt that the proper proposals have been put to the Secretary of State on this issue and that a correct decision has been taken.
I am pleased that three local people have made the long journey from the north of Scotland to listen to the debate because that shows the concern of the people in the area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banff mentioned the necessity of keeping at least some emergency provision. Clinical emergency facilities are always available. My hon. Friend also asked whether the Secretary of State for Scotland would consider meeting a delegation, including himself, from the north of Scotland. I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend will certainly meet such a delegation.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: On behalf of hon. Members on both sides of the House, I express our gratitude to the Under-Secretary of State for the generous offer that he has made to meet a delegation from the north of Scotland. We appreciate it.

Mr. Fairgrieve: I thank the right hon. Member for that kind intervention. I shall pass on what he has said to the Secretary of State.
I accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn has a direct constituency interest and that there are wider implications, and I accept what they mean to rural areas.
Your clemency is well known, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you will not want me to diversify and to talk about what could be done in rural areas—in
other words, to go far beyond maternity homes. If I started to talk about agriculture, forestry and other subjects in which I am interested, I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would rule me out of" order.
I thank my hon. Friends for contributing to this important Adjournment debate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be delighted to meet the delegation. He and I and the Grampian board will do everything that we can in the interests of those in the Grampian area.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Eleven o'clock.